Laxtonto

That was a bad bad throw

I feel bad for the kid, but yeah it seems obvious he blew something major

Popped a ligament?

QB trucked that DB.... he literally sought him out to hammer him

Meh, we have Baxter and a RB coach who can bring in the best available every cycle. Do not want Owens Sr. (Or Jr) Louisville might be a nice spot

Max is just.... lol WTF

2 sacks my the OL!!!

Tenn finds something that works and gets down the field and then decides to go away from it and try to run power football and give them plenty of time to sub...

Max is oing to die back there

These are just two bad teams...

This should also make it absolutely known that then their long range strikes are absolutely having to run lock-step with production. If UKA was truly devious, it is now time to find a key cog in that production chain and do some major drone/special operations missions to fracture the production schedule even more. If you are having to stockpile to be able to do larger scale bulk attacks, then you are completely beholden to the production process. The UKA has been tracking serial numbers for a while and this is just one more in a long line of data points showing Russia is at their production limits for all sorts of munitions and vehicles. If they ramp of mobilization then it will further impact production. If they try and ramp up production they have to find a way to deal with lack of skilled labor and production capability (as well as resource scarcity).

Did your front door look like this?

Been watching a bit of baseball and may have had like..... 8 Oktoberfest.... leave me alone... the point still stands just sub in DL for WR

Got to replace that other 5 star WR that is going to decommit to go play with Prime… That money is got to be spent on a WR because…. Reasons…. It doesn’t matter that picking up 1 or 2 average OL in the portal would have a massive impact on that team, overloading on prospects at deep positions is the right way to do things

I’ve thought this for awhile and what happens if they really do somehow fire Bilbo? I doubt any coach they bring in will allow the inmates to get away with anywhere near the shit they are doing right now. If that is the case the offseason attrition would be worse than we have seen so far. There is almost no way the can him because it would set up a 2 or 3 year rebuild just as we enter the SEC. Nothing would be worse perception-wise for them to have us win the first several games against them. And the likelihood of that happening would dramatically increase if they can Bilbo. So with the built in excuse of the Weigman injury plus knowing canning him will guarantee them sucking worse when we join the SEC, should make 7-5 or better enough for them to talk themselves into keeping him another year or two( well that and the astronomic cost it would be to actually follow through on replacing him and the entire staff with someone competent).

And with those guys sitting there laughing you know that little crossing is already sighted in for artillery... or they are just waiting to pop off some Javs if need be.. This does highlight the absolute impossibility of ground warfare in the age of drones and other avenues of mass battlefield monitoring when forced into this static battlefield concept. There are few surprises and so we are seeing many of the concepts from WW1 becoming the battlefield norm. Static lines and a massive no-man's land on the ground with now layered air defenses are going to make large-scale advances a thing of the past without complete air superiority. This also gives me pause about the discussion centered on how drones have completely changed modern armored combat. Is it really the case for the US approach to combat or is this only true when the air war component is a complete stalemate? The US doctrine of owning the skies first means most advances would be done into areas without heavy armor support (because masses of armor are a death sentence) and no artillery support (as they are a key operational target before an advance) and so then lightning advances to blow through defenses would still be valid. Drones are effective because they are cheap and can be used to target stationary equipment and to some extent attack advancing vehicles to a static line or position. When you do not have air superiority, the heavy lifting is then being done by the boots on the ground and the artillery, which allows masses of drones to be very effective. How would this work as a defensive force when you no longer have air superiority? The masses of armor needed to defeat your static lines work are a liability against drones, but now the aggressor does not need to mass huge amounts of armor because you can't either. Large groups of armor is a death trap for the defending force (A10 go brrrrrrr) and so you can't mass armor unless they are under a complete AA screen. Massive AA screens and layered air defenses just mean you are building a great target for cruise missiles to wipe out. Your artillery is being wiped out so there is little way to dissuade larger assaults with lighter armored recon vehicles and so now your drone swarms are a nuisance but can't really be effective because now you have more limited targets quick moving targets. As the armored infantry advance quickly, then your static lines are useless, and more importantly you are losing ground and established launch points for your drones. Once your lines are breached and there is chaos in your rear, the front collapses and a full retreat is underway. Drones are a game changer in a static war. The only way for it to be static though is to completely control the air against the US over your part of the front. If you control the airspace over your part of the front, we will begin to see this rehash of WW1 concepts. If you lose the airwar, then the modern techniques should still have value. Do drones enhance viability and therefore help battlefield capabilities, sure. But how is that different than realtime or near realtime satellite imaging? What drones have done has made real-time reconnaissance cheap and accessible for all levels of combatants and so the overwhelming advantage in the information space held by the US has been slightly eroded. But in truth that advantage for the opposition is much more limited against the US than say fighting someone with a more comparable level of battlefield technology.

The more we talk about this the more it makes sense that their first “real” target should be Mike Gundy. They would be considered a step up in pay, conference, facilities, and quality of life over Oklahoma State. According to A&M college station recruits itself so Gundy’s less than stellar recruiting record shouldn’t be a problem. Plus he has shown that he is a known “developer” of talent, which A&M needs. Plus he has had OK offenses over the years with solid OLs. He would be a perfect fit and as a coach he is probably looking for a home for the tail end of his career and A&M is more than willing to pay above the going rate…

If they are saying that 70-90% are caused by bleeding, then most likely you need to take the death toll numbers from the classic battlefield casualty formula and double if not triple them. The entire premise of the modern casualty prediction formula is that small arms fire and large-scale machine gun suppression fire create injuries that actively degrade combat units to force them off the line, but the modern battle dress and field medicine mitigates most deaths and even limits limb amputation. If they are simply fleeing and leaving their wounded and maybe going back later to get them as the thread suggests, the true death toll will be horrific. It is not just the blood loss, but also the exposure to the elements and extended time between injury to treatment that is going to add to the death toll. Wounds that could be treated with minimal difficulty in a combat support or field hospital in hours that would see combatants recover and rotate back to the front with minimal recovery time become life-threatening if left untreated for 12 hours or more. If this is a common occurrence, then the 5 to 1 or 3 to 1 injuries to fatalities seen in WW2 might be a much more approximate proxy than the current combat ratio of 10 - 17 to 1 that is more commonly used in "modern" combat.

This is now probably my official Burt gif...