LaFinlandia

Found it

https://youtu.be/Glf6ECFvTm0

The ergonomics makes it feel almost weightless

/s

6!

We were assigned a random president in high school, and I had to write a paper on his presidency. My paper was too short.

Sounds like a robbery.

I assume they moved a Patriot system closer to the front line, or the FrankenSAM project with an S-300 missile launcher and Patriot radar.

I assume you're talking about the bridgehead in the Kherson region. It has expanded slowly. Putin concentrated most of his forces near Avdiivka and Bakhmut for political victories ahead of his "election".

https://sopuli.xyz/comment/7020604

The MT-LB and the M113 are both tracked armored vehicles that can carry troops or cargo, but they have different origins, designs, and roles. Here are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each vehicle:

• The MT-LB was developed by the Soviet Union in the 1950s as a multi-purpose, amphibious, light armored tractor and utility vehicle. It has a small turret that can mount a 12.7 mm machine gun, a 30 mm grenade launcher, or a 30 mm autocannon. It has steel armor that can withstand small arms fire and shell splinters. It has a low profile that makes it less visible and vulnerable to enemy fire. It is cheaper and more versatile than the M113, as it can be used for various roles such as anti-air, anti-tank, artillery, mortar, ambulance, engineering, etc.

• The M113 was developed by the United States in the 1960s as an armored personnel carrier (APC) that can transport infantry on the battlefield. It has a simple design that consists of a box-shaped aluminum hull with a 12.7 mm machine gun on top. It has better ergonomics, maintenance, logistics, optics, and communications than the MT-LB, as it was designed with the comfort and safety of the crew and passengers in mind. It is taller and therefore better suited for counter-insurgency (COIN) operations, as it can provide better visibility and fire support for the troops.

• The MT-LB has some disadvantages compared to the M113, such as:

  • Its amphibious capability is impractical and requires a lot of preparation and maintenance. It is not very effective in crossing rivers or lakes, as it is slow and vulnerable in the water.

  • Its turret has a limited traverse and elevation, and its weapons are not very accurate or powerful. It cannot engage enemy tanks or aircraft effectively, and it relies on external fire control and optics.

  • Its engine is noisy and unreliable, and its suspension is stiff and uncomfortable. It has poor mobility and speed on rough terrain, and it consumes a lot of fuel.

• The M113 has some disadvantages compared to the MT-LB, such as:

  • Its aluminum armor is thin and weak, and it can be easily penetrated by rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), mines, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs). It offers little protection for the crew and passengers without ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor).

  • Its machine gun is the only weapon it has, and it has no turret or grenade launcher. It cannot defend itself against enemy armor or aircraft, and it depends on external support for fire power.

  • Its design is outdated and obsolete, and it has been replaced by more modern and advanced vehicles in many countries. It has limited versatility and adaptability, and it can only perform the role of an APC.

Generated mostly by CoPilot with minor modifications.

The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) finds uncontroversial the notion that wounded and hors de combat are not the same. They acknowledge that individuals can be “wounded or sick, whether severely or not, but … not (yet) incapacitated by their medical condition.” Wounded combatants can continue to fight, and contemporary adversaries have engaged in tactics such as “playing dead” or other forms of perfidy.

Standing alone, the fact that an enemy is laying still on the ground is insufficient to determine that target has fallen out of the fight. Also, the mere appearance of visible wounds is probably not enough, unless the nature of those wounds makes it clear the person is unable to defend themselves or unable to continue to fight. Clear indicators of hors de combat from wounds include decapitation or an amount of pooling blood that makes it plain and obvious the enemy’s injuries were mortal. If an attacker is not convinced an enemy is out of the fight, that enemy continues to be a lawful target and can be attacked or reengaged.

However, the practice of automatic, indiscriminate attacks on downed enemies to include a technique or standard procedure of firing “security rounds,” “double-taps,” or “death checks,” is unlawful. The possibility of a theoretical threat from general enemies is insufficient—the determining factor is a good faith belief that a specific enemy, though wounded, is not yet out of the fight. Unless a reasonable attacker would be convinced a wounded enemy is out of the fight (or the wounded enemy is clearly, genuinely, and unconditionally surrendering under circumstances when it would be feasible to accept that surrender) the law presumes that the enemy remains a lawful target.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/

There are videos that show a clear violation, but this is not one of them.

The only thing more dangerous than a Florida man is a Florida cop.