Are we getting worse results though? How are you determining that? Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything. It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
The US has gone for high tech and precision. Costs much more, much lower production, but generally better results.
Also Russia is in a “hot” war with Ukraine and of course will be well into mass producing shells to use etc. Seeing as the US is barely passing measures to send aid to Ukraine, there isn’t going to be an appetite to ramp up that production.
Look to world war 2 for an example of how the US can go from no real military might to okay you touched our fucking boats, now we end you.
Not only has the US not won a war since the 1950s, literally every nation that relies on high tech low production has fucking failed at warfare
It’s war. Things will break and get destroyed. There are no invincible Wunderwaffen. It is always better to have five tanks that are 80% effective but easily replaced and repaired over one single tank that’s 100% effective but requires millions to build one single tank
It’s a lesson taught over and over again
basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder
This is literally Nazi WW2 propaganda that still gets repeated as fact. I’m sure you still believe that the Soviets only armed half their troops at Stalingrad
And why are you bringing Stalingrad into this? You are literally saying it’s a good thing that Russia is producing more arms etc and then saying Russia doesn’t tend to operate by trying to use overwhelming numbers? Huh?
That isn’t their military goal, I know that planning military is beyond most American minds, but sometimes war aims aren’t “take everything”
And why are you bringing Stalingrad into this?
Because you’re the one who began by spouting the “human waves” Nazi myth that began in Stalingrad
I know that it’s really difficult for you Lemmitors to have a thought going, but I’ve heard that if you rub two braincells together you’d be surprised at the results. Don’t strain yourself though
Because that isn’t their goal despite what the NATO disinformation mills would have you think.
You are literally saying it’s a good thing that Russia is producing more arms etc and then saying Russia doesn’t tend to operate by trying to use overwhelming numbers? Huh?
Bombs aren’t people. You can pummel an enemy with a metric shitfuckton of shells without sending in human waves.
Demilitarize Ukkkraine, which is being puppeteered by the world’s largest rogue state and exporter of terrorism: the United SSnakes of AmeriKKKA.
They have already annexed new chunks of Ukraine.
idgaf
They tried to push into Kyiv.
To force Ukkkraine to negotiate for peace after the Banderite entity broke both minsk accords and the Great Satan broke the Budapest Memorandum. A process that was underway until Boris Johnson twisted their arm to make them keep sending people into the meat grinder
Why should anyone believe anything they are saying when they’ve so consistently demonstrated that they can’t be trusted?
Because they have consistently shown they can be trusted, unlike the conniving Nazi Arming and Training Organization.
Are you still pretending this is a “special military operation” that is for peace keeping lol
So why is Russia sending in hundreds of thousands of troops?
Where does this overwhelming numbers thing come from?
Remember when the war started and all the newsmedia was making a big deal out of Russia invading with 150,000 soldiers? Meanwhile, Ukraine had triple that.
You ever think your world view might be a little… curated?
Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything. It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
NATO is spending 15 times more money to produce fewer munitions than Russia, and those munitions are not fifteen times as effective. Ukraine has not been able to make any significant changes in their frontline because they can only fire a fraction of the shells that Russia can and the imbalance is tipping further into Russia’s direction.
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
Every modern war between peers has been a test of one sides productive ability against the other’s. The US won WWII, and forced a stalemate in Korea because it had enormously more industrial power, and could afford to spend equipment instead of lives.
those munitions are not fifteen times as effective
By what metric are you basing this off of? What’s your evidence? The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
Of course it’s gonna be difficult or impossible to say how it would fair head to head against Russian fighters, but again, if Russia has these, why aren’t they in use and how is Ukraine giving them such trouble?
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
I mean, duh? But that’s not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Small arms advantage guess to bulk as failures aren’t catastrophic and the whole accuracy by volume thing is real.
Missiles, artillery etc? I’d say the advantage is probably soundly in the higher tech end because it makes it exponentially more effective.
Ukraine has been holding off Russia for how long now with leftover scraps from Western countries?
but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
According to what, the fever dreams of some MIC thinktank writer? It’s never seen combat against a peer force. Acting as if it’s some god-like wunderwaffen when it’s been nothing but a MIC grift for decades is the purest of copium, especially as we’re seeing other Western wunderwaffen get absolutely spanked in Ukraine right now - even the so called invincible M1 Abrams and Challengers are getting wrecked at alarming rates
Remember that the F-117 was considered the best stealth fighter around, a revolutionary new plane that would change warfare, invisible and unstoppable - and then it got shot down by an out of date export variant AA missile in Serbia who watched the thing on radar the whole time
But that’s not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Is the NATO stuff more reliable or just more expensive and rare? I think the reliability argument is just cope. There are articles kicking around about ukrainians complaining that the abrams tanks are not reliable because they need frequent maintenance. There’s this article talking about vehicles Canada donated being bad at offroading. I would like to see evidence that the assertion that NATO stuff is more reliable is actually true.
remind me, where has Ukraine been getting its weapons? why haven’t they swept the nasty russians out of Donbass and Crimea with oh so superior NATO equipment?
you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment
I mean the fact that they are still standing is a pretty solid endorsement. By your logic Kyiv should have fallen in the first week like Russia was claiming it would.
Specific example off the top of my head is the cruise missile strikes against the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet using Storm Shadows I believe iirc
Those are US and NATO military objectives intended to prevent populations from industrializing so they remain dependent on your productive capacity and exchange their natural resources to obtain goods you produce.
Russia doesn’t want that. Russia wants to neutralize a security threat on its border.
Blitzkrieg / shock and awe tactics don’t work if you intend to govern its victims. Soviet military doctrine was more oriented towards drawn out siege warfare letting your factories wear down your enemies. Russia seems to be employing that doctrine here too.
This war was never going to be a short affair, even if the Atlantic printed stories saying so.
if you spend 100x on ammo and that ammo is jammed, kind of.
the f35 might have some “neat” features but IDK if it’s really worth it’s cost vs “just build more eagles/raptors/drones with minor updates”.
Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything.
Sometimes you really do just gotta build more simple tanks instead of building tanks that use double gas just so they can do combat cartwheels or w/e.
It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
that’s pretty racist (against me, specifically)
Look to world war 2 for an example of how the US can go from no real military might to okay you touched our fucking boats, now we end you.
as much as I still believe a new ramp up is plausible, I’m mostly curious if the supply chain, political will, and political competency is going to be there.
Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything. It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
You are literally repeating OG Nazi propaganda
Costs much more, much lower production, but generally better results.
Look to world war 2 for an example of how the US can go from no real military might to okay you touched our fucking boats, now we end you.
You don’t need to look that far back. Osama touched our towers and the US plunged several countries into abject destitution, slavery, and perpetual terrorism.
One more thing Americans are paying more for and getting worse results
Are we getting worse results though? How are you determining that? Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything. It’s basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.
The US has gone for high tech and precision. Costs much more, much lower production, but generally better results.
Also Russia is in a “hot” war with Ukraine and of course will be well into mass producing shells to use etc. Seeing as the US is barely passing measures to send aid to Ukraine, there isn’t going to be an appetite to ramp up that production.
Look to world war 2 for an example of how the US can go from no real military might to okay you touched our fucking boats, now we end you.
Not only has the US not won a war since the 1950s, literally every nation that relies on high tech low production has fucking failed at warfare
It’s war. Things will break and get destroyed. There are no invincible Wunderwaffen. It is always better to have five tanks that are 80% effective but easily replaced and repaired over one single tank that’s 100% effective but requires millions to build one single tank
It’s a lesson taught over and over again
This is literally Nazi WW2 propaganda that still gets repeated as fact. I’m sure you still believe that the Soviets only armed half their troops at Stalingrad
So why hasn’t Russia taken over Ukraine?
And why are you bringing Stalingrad into this? You are literally saying it’s a good thing that Russia is producing more arms etc and then saying Russia doesn’t tend to operate by trying to use overwhelming numbers? Huh?
That isn’t their military goal, I know that planning military is beyond most American minds, but sometimes war aims aren’t “take everything”
Because you’re the one who began by spouting the “human waves” Nazi myth that began in Stalingrad
I know that it’s really difficult for you Lemmitors to have a thought going, but I’ve heard that if you rub two braincells together you’d be surprised at the results. Don’t strain yourself though
Removed by mod
I could lay it out in exacting detail but something tells me you would just continue to post Reddit tier gotchas like in the rest of the thread
So instead I’m going to make it as simple as possible for your Reddit brain to understand:
Annexing three Black Sea provinces =|= capturing the entirety of a country
Removed by mod
Because that isn’t their goal despite what the NATO disinformation mills would have you think.
Bombs aren’t people. You can pummel an enemy with a metric shitfuckton of shells without sending in human waves.
Removed by mod
Demilitarize Ukkkraine, which is being puppeteered by the world’s largest rogue state and exporter of terrorism: the United SSnakes of AmeriKKKA.
idgaf
To force Ukkkraine to negotiate for peace after the Banderite entity broke both minsk accords and the Great Satan broke the Budapest Memorandum. A process that was underway until Boris Johnson twisted their arm to make them keep sending people into the meat grinder
Because they have consistently shown they can be trusted, unlike the conniving Nazi Arming and Training Organization.
Source or stfu.
Removed by mod
Neither does the USA, jackass.
imagine mentioning international law alongside what’s happening in Gaza. fuck off
Russia’a goal is destroying Ukraines military which they’re doing extremely effectively. They’re not racing to grab land lol
Removed by mod
Usa broke the treaty first, and Merkel admitted that they never intended upholding their part
Removed by mod
If you love the nazi pig fucks so much why don’t you go there and help fight? I’d love to see that
Gamer-brained jackass
Hexbear mods are discriminating against me by banning all the dunkables while I am sleeping.
oppa gangnam style
Where does this overwhelming numbers thing come from?
Remember when the war started and all the newsmedia was making a big deal out of Russia invading with 150,000 soldiers? Meanwhile, Ukraine had triple that.
You ever think your world view might be a little… curated?
Because taking total control over Ukraine was never part of their war objectives?
NATO is spending 15 times more money to produce fewer munitions than Russia, and those munitions are not fifteen times as effective. Ukraine has not been able to make any significant changes in their frontline because they can only fire a fraction of the shells that Russia can and the imbalance is tipping further into Russia’s direction.
Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.
Every modern war between peers has been a test of one sides productive ability against the other’s. The US won WWII, and forced a stalemate in Korea because it had enormously more industrial power, and could afford to spend equipment instead of lives.
By what metric are you basing this off of? What’s your evidence? The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.
https://lexingtoninstitute.org/the-f-35-is-the-safest-and-most-capable-fighter-the-u-s-military-has/#:~:text=In recent Red Flag aerial,improved their scores as well.
Of course it’s gonna be difficult or impossible to say how it would fair head to head against Russian fighters, but again, if Russia has these, why aren’t they in use and how is Ukraine giving them such trouble?
I mean, duh? But that’s not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.
Small arms advantage guess to bulk as failures aren’t catastrophic and the whole accuracy by volume thing is real.
Missiles, artillery etc? I’d say the advantage is probably soundly in the higher tech end because it makes it exponentially more effective.
Ukraine has been holding off Russia for how long now with leftover scraps from Western countries?
According to what, the fever dreams of some MIC thinktank writer? It’s never seen combat against a peer force. Acting as if it’s some god-like wunderwaffen when it’s been nothing but a MIC grift for decades is the purest of copium, especially as we’re seeing other Western wunderwaffen get absolutely spanked in Ukraine right now - even the so called invincible M1 Abrams and Challengers are getting wrecked at alarming rates
Remember that the F-117 was considered the best stealth fighter around, a revolutionary new plane that would change warfare, invisible and unstoppable - and then it got shot down by an out of date export variant AA missile in Serbia who watched the thing on radar the whole time
Removed by mod
Is the NATO stuff more reliable or just more expensive and rare? I think the reliability argument is just cope. There are articles kicking around about ukrainians complaining that the abrams tanks are not reliable because they need frequent maintenance. There’s this article talking about vehicles Canada donated being bad at offroading. I would like to see evidence that the assertion that NATO stuff is more reliable is actually true.
Removed by mod
teenager who still reads Air Force ROTC Quarterly back issues his older brother left when he went to college
Which capability has never been needed in teh forty years since the design of the plane began.
Barring any wild and outlandish contingencies such as rain
remind me, where has Ukraine been getting its weapons? why haven’t they swept the nasty russians out of Donbass and Crimea with oh so superior NATO equipment?
Mostly old Soviet stock piles and some western weapons. You don’t actually believe that the entire Ukrainian army is being supplied by NATO do you?
you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment
I mean the fact that they are still standing is a pretty solid endorsement. By your logic Kyiv should have fallen in the first week like Russia was claiming it would.
Specific example off the top of my head is the cruise missile strikes against the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet using Storm Shadows I believe iirc
“by my logic” i didn’t say ukraine would have crumbled without NATO arms. i’m questioning how superior and helpful NATO arms are, remember?
but if the only thing it’s helped with has been striking Russia’s fleet in a war being fought on land in the east, lmao that seems very consequential
Removed by mod
Because Russia isn’t seeking to destroy Ukraine.
Those are US and NATO military objectives intended to prevent populations from industrializing so they remain dependent on your productive capacity and exchange their natural resources to obtain goods you produce.
Russia doesn’t want that. Russia wants to neutralize a security threat on its border.
Blitzkrieg / shock and awe tactics don’t work if you intend to govern its victims. Soviet military doctrine was more oriented towards drawn out siege warfare letting your factories wear down your enemies. Russia seems to be employing that doctrine here too.
This war was never going to be a short affair, even if the Atlantic printed stories saying so.
Yea, German engineering works wonders.
Just one more Wunderwaffen, bro, I swear
if you spend 100x on ammo and that ammo is jammed, kind of.
the f35 might have some “neat” features but IDK if it’s really worth it’s cost vs “just build more eagles/raptors/drones with minor updates”.
Sometimes you really do just gotta build more simple tanks instead of building tanks that use double gas just so they can do combat cartwheels or w/e.
that’s pretty racist (against me, specifically)
as much as I still believe a new ramp up is plausible, I’m mostly curious if the supply chain, political will, and political competency is going to be there.
Jesus christ on a variety of crackers.
You are literally repeating OG Nazi propaganda
Google Lanchester’s laws
Cope
You don’t need to look that far back. Osama touched our towers and the US plunged several countries into abject destitution, slavery, and perpetual terrorism.
