I'm an untrained never served civilian yet I think I could take military units in a firefight, am I delusional?
>am I delusional
Yes, and you're also a faggot.
Bad job, OP.
Why would you make this thread
>>30171985
The safe bet is that you're a delusional idiot, but it depends on which military that you're talking about.
People who still think personal weapons matter think like this.
>>30171985
Being able to shoot is not a winning card. It's one rather unimportant skill out of many required to be competitive.
Combat is a team sport. If you don't bring a team you aren't even in the running.
>>30171985
Depends if it's the Iraki army or not.
>>30172071
Say the Chinese military
>>30172165
>Iraki
For any military outside of Africa, yes. And even then, it's still not guaranteed
>>30171985
>untrained civilian
>am i delusional
yep
It would probably be a matter of whether or not you have a team to work with or you are working against a team.
If you have a team just like yourself all equipped with assault rifles you probably could take a military team
If it's just you vs. 1 military guy and it's a gun deathmatch than it's probably 50/50
If it's just you vs. entire military team you're 95% fucked
>>30172954
This sounds wrong even with the forward math.
If it was 50/50 it would imply that they are both equally trained, but being that he is a civie, not a military service member i would be willing to say that he doesnt have the training that a military service member has, which would mean that he would have a much less chance than 50% to win in a one on one fight. I would say that the odds would maybe be more within the 0-25% range to account for luck and maybe whatever skill he may have from going to a range.
And against a military team? No. 0%.
>>30171985
Yes, you are delusional
Being a soldier isn't just shooting and basic tactics.
>>30173006
Hear me out I'm not op.
I think that while op said untrained that might not mean much. Assuming a 1v1 situation an untrained country type person who is used to hunting and moving through woods quietly probably has an advantage over the average grunt in the home terrain of the country person.
>>30171985
It depends on the unit. When I went to WLC there were all sorts of pogs there that couldn't even properly organize an ambush to save their life. I wasn't infantry but I was artillery and I was still more tactically proficient than probably 90% of them.
Against a unit of pogs you might have a chance.
Against infantry or any combat arms really, you'd have no chance.
>>30173006
>>30173091
To add to what I said if it is an urban cqb type situation good chance the soldier will fuck up the other guy in a 1v1.
>miltia
>fighting regular army in a civil war
wtf are you doing. attack their homes. rape is wife, nail his children to telephone poles, cut out their eyes and crucify them in their front yard.
go to bestbuy and buy a drone and raid your local universitys training nuclear reactor and build American tier radio controlled car bombs.
>>30173091
>>30173102
Thats a fair point about the woods, but it would be proper to consider that most of your engagements are going to probably be very close, and being that OP is untrained i would also be willing to assume that he wouldn't know how to set up a successful ambush. I dont know about OPs living conditions, whether hes in an urban area or a rural area, but being that hes untrained i dont really think he can set up ambushes successfully.
However, with a combat arms infantry/squad, which i believe is the implied combatants OP will be against, even while in an unfamiliar terrain they still do have their training/tactics that they could still employ.
>>30173102
I'd say a cqb scenario would favor whoever shoots first. Longer ranges favor the better trained and experienced
>>30173102
Depends on how close.
Are they on the same city block?
In the same building?
Across a street?
In the same room?
>1v1
>military units in a firefight
yep, that's delusional.
Put it Rumsfeld's way: there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and the difference between civilians and professionals is professionals know the latter.
Civilians have to consciously think about squad tactics and give commands, then they have to think about following commands, etc, etc. They may not even know those tactics at all.
In contrast, infantry learn those tactics as drills, defined as executing them automatically, on reflex. There are many things like that. Marksmanship is one. PT in gear is one. Being inured to military discipline and fire is one.
Knowing and experiencing all those things doesn't make you a badass. It doesn't make you competent infantry. It's simply the minimum ticket price for entry to the game. Competing with anything less is just a novel form of suicide.
>>30173334
Well worded.
Well, it depends on how you define "take". Asymmetrical warfare is a bit of a peculiar beast. You can lose every stand-up engagement you participate in and take many more times the casualties, but if your goal isn't "to kill the enemy" but rather "to fight the enemy until the nation putting him there gives up", then things change.
A lot of big bad nations have had their asses handed to them by peasants with small arms.
>>30173097
Bro, I was infantry and i went to BLC, they didn't even let me lead a fire team. They chose to let the supply clerks and the females lead for some reason.
>>30174265
this is the only leading those individuals are going to get
check your infantry privilege
>>30171985
>OP owns a farm
>OP refuses to pay taxes
>the Fed shows up to collect
>OP shoots them
>Police arrive
>OP starts firing at them with a rifle
>"Fuck it, just send in the local National Guard"
>OP gets mortared
>>30171985
>units
>unitS
>many units
>even more than none, which would be one
Delusional doesn't exactly cut it.
In the first place, do define the sort of firefight you're talking about. Like, trashy hobo/redneck/trailer trash doing the whole alamo thing against not-quite military SWAT?
Or are you being coy and saying you are an unwashed dirty towelhead and that God will protect you, kin and kith? Because, some of those assholes have 'taken' on whole 'units' without dying. On the other hand, the units weren't wiped out and the sole reason why the sandnigger left was because sgt is a penny-pincher and thought placing a javelin into your mudhole hut was too much.
if you have a good position and they have a garbage position, you probably have a few minutes before you get annihilated if its a platoon. you could take out a fireteam relatively easily if you know what you are doing. you need good weaponry though. surviving the hell you just unleashed is another story though.
No? If dirt farmers in iraqistan and rice fields fucks living in holes could do it so could you.
>>30171985
In a firefight? Fuck no. Militaries exist because they're more efficient at killing than a random fucko. You watch too many movies.
>>30171985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0
>>30171985
It depends.
You alone? Doubt it.
They aware of your pressence when entering a area? Your done for.
Got the drop on em? You may be able to eek it out, I doubt it but you'll atleast take several down with you.
>>30171985
Do you have enough other relatively untrained friends to substantially outnumber the trained soldiers? Then yes, you'd probably win, but expect a bunch of your guys, including possibly yourself, to go home in body bags
outside of straight up shooting and killing everyone they see, you have the advantage of blending in with the population.
If you go head to head, you better have a lot of armed friends with you, and even then, someone needs to know what the fuck they're doing.
>>30173334
that makes perfect sense.
it's like saying that you can out-fight a military pilot in a fighter jet because you log 3 hours of Falcon 4.0 every night. the environment is completely different when you actually start flying. little things like staying conscious require skills like the AGSM or looking for your wingman which by now is reflexive. yet at the beginning i had to count "1...2...3...breath" while i did my AGSM.
Head to head your probably fucked but a ambush in a guerilla warfare type situation you could possibly take one or two with you
>>30171985
If military "units" are their dicks, I'm sure you could take plenty of them on.
>>30171985
Smart money says you have no chance in hell, but there have been cases of untrained partisans fighting standing armies and giving them hell. The issue I see with your idea is you think fighting off an entire unit is necessary whereas one quick hit and leave is a better option.
>>30173161
>not spraying bait to smell like military boon for ambush
Depends largely if its conscripts or professional soldiers.
>>30171985
>say this
>get in fight with military
>shit self and crawl into a ball
>get fragged
you a dumb my man
>>30171994
This /thread
>>30171985
Yes. Even if you get the drop on one guy and your bullet actually manages to hit one of his vitals and not uselessly ricochet off his plates, his three pals will be on you.
"Unit" doesn't mean single dude.
>>30176562
See, but the "untrained partisans" usually fought by leaving behind traps and hiding behind cover; whenever they were caught out on the field, they were as good as dead.
>>30171985
OP and his friends , why he thinks they can take out the Military.
>>30177012
Only thing those faggots kill is their dignity.
>>30172115
Hasn't the go to /k/ advice for guerilla war been to take a pot shot and run away before they figure out where you are?
>>30177293
Those guys all get shot. That's why they use suicide bombers now.
Yes, even non experienced militaries do combat drills. This make it so when shit hits the fan they know what to do...granted the level of training varies but just the reaction from training helps a shit ton more then you would think
