User blog comment:Wassboss/Children in the Crossfire: LRA vs Khmer Rouge/@comment-35680048-20190116174200

Tybaltcapulet's "Ah, the Khmer Rouge, my old friend" Edges:

Blades: Yeah screw the Cane Knife. It's not designed for combat, and it's blade design reflects that. I see the Cane Knife struggling to successfully inflict enough damage to kill consistently. The Bowie on the other hand, is a thick and powerful blade, that will inflict damage quite easily, and is designed to be used in combat.Edge: LRA 

Pistols: Ah I remember this comparison in my first battle too. And I keep with my verdict on it. The M1911 may have one less bullet, but it's got a more powerful round, and a longer range. The Tokarev's extra bullet is nice, but the M1911 takes every other advantage needed.Edge: LRA 

SMG's: I'm going with the PPS on this one. It's power, lighter weight, and folding stock will be a major advantage in reliability, and ease of use. I love the Uzi but it's a hard weapon to keep control of with it's monstrous fire rate and recoil. The environment is already hard to fight against without an Uzi blasting all over the place. And these aren't your standard soldiers either, so I doubt that they will be overly accurate in this fight so, i'm gonna go with the more user-friendly weapon here.Edge: Khmer Rouge 

Assault: The debate of the century. The AK-47 vs the M16. And here, i'm gonna give it to the AK for a couple of reasons. First is power, where the AK dominate with the 7.62x39mm. Then there's rate of fire. Now one may think, " Hey Tybalt, isn't the M16's higher?". Yes, yes it is, and as this is similar to the SMG section but in reverse. Once again the type of soldier and the situation are critical here. The AK-47's lower RPM will help it to make more accurate shots, that  will be more likely to kill than the M16. And let's not forget, the M16 and it's companion weaponry of the time were known for reliability issues if I remember correctly, and the AK-47 is known for being one of the most rugged and reliable weapons to ever exist. Range isn't important, the jungle dowplays any advantage that has ( Pistols are different, because their range is so limited.) Edge: LRA

X-factors: I would actually say that their training is more equal than the author believes it to be. It's true that the Cambodians  had a proper regime and could devote their time to doing that, but there's something important to remember.The Khmer Rouge was never effectively allocated for combat either. Their infrastructure dedicated a crap ton of time to prison camps and collective farming. They aren't used to a determined enemy as evidenced by their swift defeat by the Vietnamese, showing a large lack of training, and are best used to innocent civillians. I highly doubt the the regime's soldiers are trained enough to be any superior to the LRA.The LRA balances out their lack of  training by having  some former Ugandan soldiers, providing them with at least rudimentary military training. The LRA is also evidenced to be slightly more successful than the KM, being able to actually fight against African militaries. As for Mental Health  it's not suprising that both of these groups aren't healthy in the slightest( It'd be cool if you could incorporate their trauma into the battle BTW), having to commit all of these atrocities, all while still being a kid or teenager. As for brutality, I think it's pretty obvious that they will attempt to rip each other to shreds without hesitation, and that any difference is marginal. Overall I give an edge to the LRA for their experience with actual armies, and not being completely destroyed in a matter of weeks like the Khmer Rouge did with the Vietnamese. This shows that the LRA have an extra level of competence that the KM simply don't have.Edge: LRA 

Overall: TBF