using NATOID hardware to demonstrate the superiority of mass over quality in modern warfare goes crazy, imagine being this willfully clueless
good for the enemy, at least. You don't even have to shoot at them for them to break apart.
Will you still be laughing when the only submersible military aircraft in the world pops out of the water behind your fleet?
The US and NATO has been touting their military hardware as invincible and battle proven because they've been attacking small nations with a weak military. When faced with an equal adversary these "invincible" war machines quickly turned into smoking piles. Apparently the US Abrams tanks are finally heading to the frontlines, can't wait for the first picks of destroyed Abrams
I think they'll break down before they get destroyed. The Abrahams needs tons of maintenance that the US is incapable of providing to Ukrainians. You basically need to put a quarter (mil) into it before it'll start like libertarian cop's radio and gun.
They didn't even mention the best Natoid hardware: the V-22 Osprey.
Was it the V-22 or the F-35 that was referred to as the greatest piece of anti-colonialist technology since the AK-47?
conveniently ignoring all of the Russian mass produced stuff and reserve Soviet tech they could pull out before touching their most modern equipment
I was really confused by this Skyfork. Like, Russia is specifically known for having military hardware that's the equivalent of a Honda. Cheap, reliable, and far from flashy.
Sure, but most of it is 50+ years old. NATO has a much larger stock of aircraft manufactured in the past 20 years.
The Russian "equivalent of a honda" aircraft have seen their NATO equivalents like the F-14 and Harrier sold off to developing nations or retired.
Upgraded gen 3 fighters are not comparable to upgraded gen 4 or gen 5 fighters, and NATO has massively more gen 4s in service than Russia does.
Russian aircraft doesn’t need to be that good to be completely honest. Russian doctrine has put much more effort into its ANTI-air capabilities, which is being shown to be much more important.
The Russian "equivalent of a honda" aircraft have seen their NATO equivalents like the F-14 and Harrier sold off to developing nations or retired.
Su-35, Mig-35, Mig-29, and Su-27 don't real I guess
Like what the fuck are you even talking about? The vast majority of Russian aircraft are equivalent to the vast majority of NATOid aircraft in service, calling them upgraded 3rd generation fighters is absurd
The Su-35 is the Su-27 with a few upgrades and a new pick of paint for the export market. It's a 50 year old design , as is the Mig-29/35.
The three most commonly fielded aircraft in the US are the F-15, F-16, and F-18, and all of them are contemporaries of the Mig-29 and Su-27
One of the only near new 4th gen fighters in service is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Everyone fields predominately 80s era aircraft kept updated, with slow movement towards 5th gen
But yeah go off on how the F-16 could wack an Su-35 in combat
Air superiority in a modern war has very little to do with air to air and much more about your ground based air defenses, of which Russian ones are known to be the best in the world.
Which is all well and good but you need to stage that shit somewhere.
these ppl are jokes. imagine believing these ridiculous numbers. a dozen T-14s and 5 Su-57s?! thats lower than the figures reported in western media. i would bet that russia has a few hundred T-14s at least. their aircraft fleet is dwarfed by the US’s, but the tank forces are a lot closer in size. if western reporting regarding Russian losses in Ukraine is to be believed, Russia has abt half the tanks as the US. but these reports are unsubstantiated and attribute the numbers of recent matériel losses to “independent sources”. assuming western media is talking out of its ass, Russia and US have similar numbers of tanks
T-14 and other vehicles based on it are kind of a meme due to persistent problems with their production, but Su-57 has already entered mass production.
By Russia's own reporting, they had not managed to deliver 40 production T-14s by the end of 2022, citing the need for further testing and difficulties with manufacture.
If the Russian Army does have hundreds of T-14s, there's not really any reason to keep them secret, and I think we would would have seen footage of them in combat by now.
thats 2022, military manufacturing in general has skyrocketed since then in Russia to keep up with their shell consumption. they have plenty of reason to hide them. why waste these top tier tanks on Ukraine when they are easily holding their defensive lines?
Shell manufacturing and electronics and vehicle manufacturing are two very different things and the former can be scaled much more quickly and easily than the latter.
The impulse towards human wave tactics and the eschewing of technological advancement is simply inherent to the Atlantic brainpan. It's only natural that when they wish to feel terror they imagine their enemy in jack-booted waves even larger than their own; and when they wish to comfort themselves they imagine their enemy to be foolishly chasing after some pie-in-the-sky wonder weapon. They have never been more flattered than to be called Yamamoto's "Sleeping Giant", a prophecy they gladly fulfilled in churning out 12,731 B-17s; 2,710 Liberty ships; and 49,234 M4 Shermans; mediocrities all in specifications, but operationally effective in massed waves.
NATOID hardware to demonstrate the superiority of mass over quality in modern warfare
this is a cold war impression where the entire Warsaw Pact had more equipment that were supposedly less quality. but without soviet tanks & shit even being worse, even if they're a little better, NATO possesses more of almost every kind of equipment, because they snatched up most the Warsaw Pact while Russia inherited like half of the USSR alone. NATO 'wunderwaffen' if y'all wana call them that are actually fucking numerous if you add them all up
I'm referring more to the fact that Russian/Soviet designed armour is easier to produce than Western AFVs. I could be wrong on this though. I suppose the framing on this is wrong since yes NATO does have more assets deployed but I view it more in the sense that Russia should have better replenishment/manufacturing throughput measured by units produced. I appreciate your perspective though, you have a point.
Nah, I've played enough shmups to know that all you need is one really good plane and pilot to take down the entire enemy fleet.
Nah, you need one mute lunatic mercenary in an F-15c strapped with all the ordnance they can carry. Source: every single Strangereal Ace
