Correction: A guy hiding in a bush wasn't able to reliably defeat tanks before.
Handheld old anti-tank weapons like RPGs with HEAT warheads were extremely unreliable, defeated by reactive explosive armors, successful only at very close range and so on. Modern ATGMs able to be fired from kilometers away and with >90% kill rates completely changes the dynamic. Those systems are only going to get smarter and cheaper when there is a physical limit on the armor+weight+cost+logistical support equation for tanks.
I would be wary of those numbers. There is a heavy selection bias, as we don't see the videos where the AT weapons fails, where the operator gets shot, etc.
We'll have better information once the fog of war lifts.
I do not know for tanks, but for artillery, it tends to be much higher (few thousands) It is quite variable depending on if you re firing full charges, firing when the tube is hot, etc.
There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc.
When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages?
I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.
The overall population is still way better now than it has been historically. I don't understand why both cannot be done in parallel anyway. It's not like we are investing everything in the space race, plenty goes on more earthly concerns.
Not just bones. Muscle mass and the rest doesn't just disappear. In the sport i do (rugby), it's been evaluated to be a danger to players (increased risk of injury), and i would wager most contact sports are similar.
Muscle mass does just disappear in the exact same way as it does when someone stops steroids. It’s not instantaneous which is why places require 12-24 months of constant hormones.
Also you picked the one single example where trans women have been sorta kinda banned with basically no concrete justification, caused the world to roast them publicly, and then clubs largely ignored them and came up with their own rules — like France and the US changed the requirements to time on HRT and T levels like every other sport and the UK did a height and weight limit which, while odd, is actually a lower bar than time on HRT.
Outright bans on trans women will basically never be necessary when HRT is so effective. If by some chance there is a sport where it’s not enough you can start imposing greater restrictions like requiring trans women reach a certain (low) weight to shed any pre-transition muscle.
There is plenty of brackets so all can play at their respectives levels, separation in different leagues for collective sports, different levels in individual sports, etc. You can have fun in your local amateur <whatever>, but there would not be any point in a game against professionals. And at the top level, olympics or international competitions, there would be no match in mixed genders for most sports.
In WW1, the rape of Belgium might have been used by propaganda and some parts fabricated, but was still pretty real. And it was not an isolated incident, but a policy.
Interesting — and, surprisingly, not covered in my UK history GCSE — but besides the point.
I’m emphatically not saying “yay Central powers!”, I’m saying “WW1 Allied powers (not WW2! Just WW1!) also bastards”.
I may have to reevaluate this belief — GCSEs aren’t good qualifications, they’re what UK pupils do at 16 — it’s just that my current belief is everyone looked bad in the first war.
I know you weren't, just providing some background information.
If you were a local living in the colonies, any of the imperial powers were going to treat you rather poorly.
But in continental Europe, the treatment of occupied Belgium/France would prefigure WW2 behavior of the German troops. In either cases putting entire villages and their inhabitants to the torch and sword was rather normal.
