u/rubicante59

So the general consensus seems to be that most explosions kill people with shrapnel and this doesn't leave much visible damage on the body. That may well be true, but I've also seen footage of soldiers incurring direct hits from bombs in Ukraine, and while they die, their body still remains intact. So does even the concussive blast do much damage to the outer body? I'd imagine the bombs dropped are mostly low yield, and it's them dropping the bombs I see in the Warleak videos.

I'm wondering when it comes to a lot of figures who apparently carried off fantastic feats, just how true they really are and what evidence there is to corroborate it. Most notably regarding snipers like Simo Hayha, Mawhinny and Hathcock. But also various feats from the Gurkha or that Leonard Funk guy. What makes some of these stories hard to believe especially, is when their actions were apparently timed. Like who could remember that it took Mawhinny 30 seconds to shoot 16 people in the heat of combat? Was there a stop watch used? It's said Funk rose his Thompson to an officer in 0.6 seconds too, before firing.

Which of these has the higher death count in Ukraine? I see some sources say they each have the highest, of around 70-80% of battlefield deaths, but how can both be true? Does it change on a monthly basis?

It seems to be widely considered that high volumes of fire best suppress the enemy, but how true is this really? Is an enemy more likely to keep there head down after a machinegun burst fires lots of shots over a general area to when aimed shots are fired more slowly over a specific area? I've heard bolt action rifles can in some ways keep heads down longer, as the enemy will be more scared of snipers. Though, I guess the MG42 also had a huge psychological effect due to its huge rate of fire. I'm not sure if it would have the same effect now if they were deployed. I'm mainly wondering if there's a goldilocks zone when it comes to suppressive fire.

I'm mainly curious as to why America soldiers and marines had trouble holding ground in the Vietnam war and how the Vietcong and NVA kept taking it back. If the purpose of infantry is to hold ground, couldn't the Americans just remain in the conquered ground after the battles were won? Maybe I'm not entirely sure if this is what infantry do, which is why I'm asking. Do the patrols involve soldiers walking long distances and then going back to base, rather than setting up new bases along the way?