artillery continues to be the undisputed king of warfare despite huge technological progress in other areas. Say something nice about it.
artillery continues to be the undisputed king of warfare despite huge technological progress in other areas.
artillery continues to be the undisputed king of warfare despite huge technological progress in other areas. Say something nice about it.
Aircraft are the kings of warfare, artillery is only dominant in ukraine because both sides are third world shitholes
Was literally about to write this
Don’t be a dumb frick in an actual peer conflict no one will have air superiority and land based units would not be easy targets of opportunity returning Arty as king of the battlefield.
>in an actual peer conflict
Not even American and there is no peer conflict possible unless the US airforce is fighting a civil war.
Arty is just a poorer loitering munitions fleet, which is a poorer drone fleet, which is a poorer airforce.
Aircraft did not become the kings of anything until the age of multi-role planes and smart bombs.
the six day war says otherwise
The more important 1973 war was a ground war.
because of air defenses israel didn’t have countermeasures for
not because precision bombs weren’t widespread
Israel’s ground army was saved by it’s air force. They definitely didn’t have any advantage without it.
Air power played a decisive role in the Israeli victory, with air interdiction perfroming entirely as intended
they were the king of the pacific theater of WWII
fpbp. sick of the meme shit i am seeing spouted since day 1 of this farce
>it's not thar russia sucks with tanks... tanks are le BAD!
>it's not that russia sucks with infantry... infantry is le BAD!
>it's not that russia sucks with PGMs... PGMs are le BAD!
>it's not thar russia sucks with aircraft... aircraft are le BAD!
artillery is literally all that's left. if they weren't attacking another third world post soviet shithole (ukrainians are the brains of the soviet empire but they have had, at best, 8 years to recover from moscow's tendrils), they would be fricking dust.
>le
kys
say Black person
le Black folk
this, artillery is the only thing they can't frick up as badly as the others because all they have to do is send rounds down range like the mongoloids they are.
Why do you insult Mongols? Mongols waged war in an intelligent manner and arguably were LESS bestial than many of their foes. Modern Mongolia is a civilized country, comparable to Czech Republic, Italy or Portugal in terms of development.
This. It's beyond moronic how people can consistently throughout time make the same mistakes, seeing a very narrow, limited scope of what's happening and then broadly declaring the most dipshit things are now true everywhere all the time as a result of that painfully shallow glance. And it's not even only aircraft. ISR and stand-off land attack shit from any 1st world country would obliterate Russia or Ukraine's artillery force in the first week.
What about flying artillery?
This is a flying tank destroyer, anon.
>no telescopic sight unit in the nose
>tank destroyer
lurk moar
Black person do you think an AH-1 can't fricking spot, lase, and engage a target from a fricklong distance with ATGMs?
you definitely don't know what you're talking about
You're right it clearly lacks the right glass for the job.
pulsar navigation guided nuclear ICBM capable submarines are the kings of warfare
aircrafts are only dominant because USA is a first world shithole
Aircraft can't provide the volume of fire artillery can and air defense massively reduces aircraft effectiveness.
If two first world militaries went to war AA would demote aircraft to pretty much the same role it's playing in Ukraine.
>Aircraft can't provide the volume of fire artillery can
*Carpet bombs you out of nowhere*
Aircraft gays are a bunch of whiny b***h Black folk who boast about how they supposedly make fortifications obsolete yet never deliver:
>Couldn't win Vietnam
>Couldn't win Afghanistan
>Couldn't take out Flak Towers during WWII in spite of their bunker busters
>Can't take out modern fortified skyscrapers in spite of their bunker busters
>Vietnam
Linebacker LITERALLY won Vietnam.
>Afghanistan
Air power completely destroyed the Taliban government. The ground operation was mop-up.
>Flak towers
Air power ravaged German industrial power and ability to fight a war. The flak towers failed to stop it.
>Fortified skyscrapers?
I assure you, my brown diaspora friend, that whatever video game those are in could be destroyed by air power IRL.
>won Vietnam
>he thinks forcing a "peace" isn't winning
I don't really know what to think.
>Linebacker LITERALLY won Vietnam.
For the Vietnamese? Because they won
>For the Vietnamese?
linebacker was extremely effective in bringing the north vietnamese supply lines to a standstill
every complaint about rolling thunders inability to interdict supply lines does not apply here
north vietnamese material was chopped in half
the effect it had on north vietnam was immediate, they were willing to have the paris peace talks specifically because they were no longer able to sustain a prolonged campaign after their logistical arteries were cut
while south vietnam did fall, it was two years after the last significant US force was present in vietnam
thats how long it took for the north to recover from the operation and to defeat the demoralized forces of the south
>won the six day war
>won the pacific campaign
>won the gulf war
>will continue to win future wars
Woah, it’s like air combat has decided wars between peers or near peers
Aircraft are artillery, numbnuts. (Leaving aside the air to air stuff, which is its own weird thing, and only exists because of trying to get at the aircraft that are putting ordnance onto your positions - as artillery does.)
No aircraft is direct fire while artillery isn't.
this is something only a burgermutt would say
Aircraft are just flying artillery.
>inb4 the couple dozen PzH unironically turn the war around because slavs can't into air
/thread
Arty is the best option if you can't afford enough planes / munitions to rule the sky but 100km range will always be worse than 500km for a normal multi-role or 6,000km if the Brits get salty.
En 20 years laser will make airplanes obsolete
>Mouthbreathing npcs liking and subscribing this self-fellating crap.
If Russia invaded 2003 Iraq, they would've conquered it in a month with minimal casualties, and if the US invaded 2022 Ukraine, they would've been btfo with tens of thousands of casualties. There is ZERO difference between Russian and US capabilities when it comes to the big picture, the real difference is that medium-sized powers like Ukraine are not sandBlack person shitholes like Iraq.
>There is ZERO difference between Russian and US capabilities when it comes to the big picture, the real difference is that medium-sized powers like Ukraine are not sandBlack person shitholes like Iraq.
>US has far larger strategic lift capability with its massive navy and abundance of long range transports
>US has greater operational logistics from the greatest proportion of motorization of any army in the world
>top three largest airforces are branches of the US military
>US has no shortage of Thermal sights, GPS, or other assorted electronics that are mandatory for modern warfare. When russia struggles to find night vision
>same capability
Russia has no meaningful or comparable capabilites to the US in any metric, and its stupid to think they would perform half as well
You're not wrong
Dumb. Wars are always holistic and require all fields to advance. The reason why aircrafts aren't prominent in Ukraine is because they're countered by anti-air batteries. You could say "USE BETTER AIRCRAFT" then they could use better anti-aircrafts. In any case, its easier to field artilleries than aircrafts and in abundance as well.
People who don't understand the basics of this are larpers. Realities of logistics prevent single weapon only wars.
I like big guns and I cannot lie.
>BOOOM
>*fiiieeww*
>_thunk_
hehehe
Ya because GPS shells, missile artillery with a range of 300km, haven't completely changed the face of artillery.
Not really. Dumb shells fired by GPS-guided artillery produced similar effects to smart GPS shells.
Black person you what.
The US Air Force would delete the entire Ukrainian and Russian artillery pieces in the field in less than one day.
id argue the US air force is the exception not the rule
Half of the US Air Force would still delete the entire Russian military by itself
Your country will fall apart as soon as Russia finishes the genocide of terrorists in Ukraine. A country whose existence depends on a handful of terrorists on the other side of the planet cannot even cope with some army of African countries.
A quarter of the US AF could HARM all of your garbage 70's SAM sites and basically you're a krok chimp
And your AF is nowhere to be seen in Ukraine
Soon you will eat your neighbors, but your powerful Air Force will still bomb Moscow only in films and computer games for nigers, who could hardly read and count to 10.
>nigers, who could hardly read and count to 10.
So the average Russian chimp?
YKS! KAKS! KOLMEEE!
French and British airforces would probably not obliterate the Ukrainian army in a day, but at least destroy its command and communication centers, making it far less effective.
If anything this war shows that IAD and Airforces are OP at cancelling air superiority.
If anything this war shows slavs are subhumans engaged in WW1 style trench warfare in 20 fricking 22.
I correct myself a third of the US Air Force would delete Russia from the face of the Earth using only conventional weapons.
They could make Moscow look like Baghdad in less than one week.
You have just declared your position invalid and unworthy. Objection dismissed.
Ok Vatnik moron. F35's alone could delete whatever is left of the Russian AF and also their useless radar SAM sites.
>muh S666
Actual garbage unless facing F15's from the 70's. The US could be bombing Moscow non stop and there's nothing the Vatnigs could do about it
Your leaders say that if Russia wins in Ukraine, then your countries will be destroyed, they say that this is your war. So tell me why your shitty AF doo not bomb Moscow?
The US AF is worth more than the entire Russian economy lmao.
Paper planes made from accounting records can do nothing with the Russian army. It's Happening right now your LGBT Reich is going to hell and your weak ir force is not saving you.
Seriously? Are you unironically calling someone poor when your country is going to hell for lack of everything from food to gas to toilet paper?
proof?
Put your hands in your pants, your ass is covered with a crust of dried shit.
I am Johnathn from Nebraska Oblast and I have not been able to buy petrol or makings of borscht to feed my family for many months now, we must tell our government to stop opposing the Russian liberation of Ukraine so that these economic times may change!
Yes yes, we are starving and have no toilet paper or food. Please continue.
Are you maybe projecting or how is anyone to interpret your post?
post passport third-worlder
Post sugar.
>Paper planes
The absolute irony of a vatnig saying this lmao.
It's you who measures military power by the number of zeros drawn on paper, not me.
This. This right here is the shit that made /k/ loathe Russians and anyone that gobbles their dicks for years before February of 2022.
>Russian accusing literally anybody of having a paper only military
Not at all like the super mega tanks, ultra killer badass infantry and uber missiles, all of which exist and are merely being held in reserve in the vast numbers with which they are certainly being produced.
kiddie its past your bedtime. get to bed or your mommy will get angry and spank you
Trench warfare is till better than dying in the open the first time you make contact.
Until drones become so prolific that trenches just become death trap targets you WILL DIG THE FUNNY HOLES
>If anything this war shows slavs are subhumans engaged in WW1 style trench warfare in 20 fricking 22.
>NOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO RUN AROUND LIKE IN COD AND MOVIES YOU CAN'T JUST DIG A FORTIFIED POSITION AND STAY THERE!!!
>If anything this war shows that IAD and Airforces are OP at cancelling air superiority.
neither the ukranians nor the russians have an effective SEAD or DEAD force, while also having large stocks of cold-war AA
so they are at a mutual disadvantage to each other when it comes to the air war
a functioning airforce would focus on knocking out enemy anti-air days or even weeks before the main air campaign even begin
It's funny because their garbage cold war AA only works on garbage cold war planes. But since the monkeys on either side can't afford any stealth planes they believe their AA's are actually effective.
Look no Ukr planes, the AIDS400 worked!
>Look no Ukr planes, the AIDS400 worked!
Not even that lol
Kek lmao, these people are actually subhumans. Remember how much they overhyped their garbage SAM systems?
Wow like they can intercept a garbage ballistic missile from the 60's half of the time. Can you imagine?
This is laughably false, and even worse than the "artillery is OP" meme. NATO, and particularly US SEAD and DEAD doctrine would absolutely rape Russian style IAD (you know, the thing their entire doctrine has focused on dismantling for decades) literally as a matter of procedure before a proper air campaign would get underway. I really wish this cope where people still fundamentally view Russia as having some parity with NATO forces would die (how else does someone think that Russia's inabilities somehow translate to NATO's or the US'?)
delusional cope
NATO couldnt even destroy yugoslav AD
>delusional cope
>he says in response to an invasion where enemy command and control was totally eviscerated before boots ever set foot on the ground
>and in total ignorance that even in yugoslavia, SEAD worked entirely as intended, with SAM sites refusing to launch in the presence of EW assets
giga cope
How's Milosovich doing these days?
Can you point me to Yugoslavia on a map?
This gets better every time I watch it.
it's like a symphony
Truly a miracle
Air combat is the most interesting part of modern war
Post the gulf war day #1 webm. My dick demands it
see
US artillery pieces would also delete Russian artillery from the field.
>artillery is the king of the battlefi-ACK!
TAAHDON OLLA TYKIMIES
TAISTELUKENTTIEN NIITTOMIES
VERTA JA SUOLEN PÄTKIÄ, NIISTÄ MÄ KÄÄRIN SÄTKIÄ! VASEN! VASEN! VASEEEN!
>artillery continues to be the undisputed king of warfare despite huge technological progress in other areas
Wrong, planes are. Always have been.
It's just that Ukies are too poor and Russians too incompetent (and poor) to field them in relevant numbers.
Wrong. Airpower consistently failed until Desert Storm.
>Airpower consistently failed until Desert Storm.
the extreme force multiplier air power lends itself to overall strategic planning has been understood since before WW2, and achieving and maintaining air supremacy has been a top priority for military planners since then
desert storm simply represents the tipping point when GPS and PGMs allowed for bombs to reach 1:1 ratio between drops and kills
air power was no longer essential, it was now overwhelming
The belief that air power would win wars was not just a theory, it became a creed born out of the belief that the airplane epitomized technological superiority, and as carrier of nuclear bombs would bring about a swift victory, and that this alone required an independent Air Force. And it could be no more wrong. Air force consistently failed even against lesser adversaries.
The USAF’s position as the nations only nuclear-capable arm reinforced this propensity to pronounce on the unlimited power of bombers. But atomic bombs were, in some sense, a parallel to the RAF’s morale effect: They made it easier to avoid thinking through the still poorly understood relationship between bombing and enemy capitulation. USAF postulated a scenario that was attractive for purposes of deterrence (and cost cutting) but unrealistic in terms of the way states actually enter into and fight wars. These problems made themselves felt when American airmen found themselves fighting limited wars in Asia, where the theories underpinning Anglo-American strategic bombing had little relevance to the circumstances at hand.
The Korean war, although seeing an US led bomber offensive, was in fact a slog that reminded not of the Battle over the Reich, but rather it resembled the Eastern Front, or the hedgerows of Normandy. Well, take away the hedges and replace them by hills, mountains, and valleys. USAF, having placed nuclear deterrence as its raison d’etre, took few lessons from this. Despite the different nature of the Korean War, the SAC mentality remained unchanged. The Korean War became a limited war and soon became an air superiority fight. As interdiction of supplies to North Korean troops and close air support of US troops emerged as another priority, the fighter-bomber took on a dominant role.
But while in Korea air power had ultimately forced North Korea into an armistice the belief that air alone would win a war finally came to an end with Vietnam. While much can be said about the micro-managing of air assets by the relevant governmental administrations, and the reluctance to fight a ground war, the Air Force had to changed. The bomber, and bombing, had failed and the air weapon had not brought down Vietnam. Vietnam revealed that the military services desperately needed institutional and cultural reform exposed critical weaknesses in command and control, from the national command authority down through theater-level and further down to the operational/tactical level of war. “Vietnam had one good result” on Army officer remarked after the war, “It’s made us question the way things are done.”
Through Korea, Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam deficiencies in tactical air power had become obvious and the move to the diminished the role of the bomber, but the deployments in Asia had also resulted in another, fundamental shift. The Air Force had become a global force, one that needed an expeditionary mindset, able to deploy rapidly, with in-theatre command and control, supported by flexible logistics, airlift capabilities and in-air refueling. And at the same time, other conflicts like the Six-Day War in 1967 showed a totally different use of airpower, one that achieved results. The result? An Air Force that had to reexamine the doctrinal underpinnings that it had held so dear since the 1930s.
What emerged was a changed force. Instead of the bomber, the multi-role fighter aircraft spearheaded not just a change in technology, but also the application of the air weapon. Electronic warfare systems and improved anti-radiation missiles started to counter the growing radar and SAM threat, advances in radar and missile technology pushed towards control of the sky, as precision guided and longer-range standoff weapons extended the destructive reach of aircraft, while the new F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 provided flexible platforms to deliver these. Meanwhile, stealth platforms like the F-117 and B-2 were to brave the missions no one else could fly. America moved from trusting in aviation firepower alone, to embracing sudden, coordinated, and overwhelming surgical strikes, tied into a mobile air, air lift and naval force supported by intelligence, in-flight refueling, rapid decision-making, and prepared with high fidelity training. Ironically this, and not the bomber, would finally bring about the ability to act against the inside, and be effective. While bombers required clear and inflexible targets with proper planning and continuous attacks, the flexible force America now possessed was able to surgically and coordinately chip away at an adversary’s leadership, production, infrastructure and military forces. And no example shows this more clearly, than Desert Storm.
Desert Storm is sometimes referred to as the ‘revolution in aerospace affairs’. And while pictures like destroyed tanks, blown up vehicles columns, and stealth bombers might give reason for such judgements, they are nothing but the result of the actual revolution. By utilizing technical advancements in ammunition including the eventual deployment of PGMs, with a mixed force (include B-52), employing clear target lists, dedicated kill boxes, a tanker bridge, and aerial controls systems such as AWACS and JSTARS, coalition forces not just disrupted the Iraqi military, but its support infrastructure, its command & control, morale, while reducing the fog-of-war painting a picture of the battlefield through intelligence and surveillance. This, paired with overwhelming numerical air superiority, allowed the coalition air forces to move from a more static preparatory air offensive to the mobile support during the ground offensive. As always, not everything went to plan but in sum, the opening air campaign, followed by a coordinated ground offensive, allowed Coalition forces to be victorious. As the final Gulf War Air Power Survey states ‘Air power dominated the military outcome of Operation Desert Storm. With the onset of the air campaign, Coalition air forces embarked on their great effort to “prepare the battlefield”. By hampering Iraqi forces in the KTO from the beginning of the war, Coalition air power destroyed whatever willingness most might have had to fight the ground battle. It was the effectiveness of the air campaign in breaking apart the organizational structure and cohesion of enemy military forces and in reaching the ‘mind’ of the Iraqi solider that counted.’
If Russia or CSTO could've done the same thing in Ukraine, they'd unironically have Kiev by now. But they can't because they're deeply dysfunctional, so now we get to enjoy the show.
The only reason the AF failed in Vietnam is because Soviet AA at the time was actually up to standards.
And the US could not Dresden every NV city because humanitarian reasons.
Nowadays the same soviet shit AA the Russians are using is useless against stealth planes.
The Air Force is more relevant than ever.
You have the understanding of air power of a 12 year old.
>And it could be no more wrong
wrong in the first paragraph
smaller units supported by air units were constantly outmaneuvering larger units due to the force multiplier of being able to interdict enemy lines while receiving recon for yourself
the 20th century is heavily defined by the power air power has at both the tactical and strategic level
>korea
>air power failling
US air supremacy was a huge factor in why the relatively small US forces were outperforming the south korean forces, air power allowed them to scatter and interdict chinese forces
FAC/JTAC was born in korea as a result of how decisive air support could be, a squad being able to coordinate fighter-bombers in the air could destroy company-sized chinese elements armed solely with hand weapons
the arab-israeli wars would only serve to remind the world of how important air power is
arab forces were consistently destroyed at the tactical, operation, and strategic levels by superior israeli aviation
in many cases, their forces were totally paralyzed by strikes on C2, or unable to maneuver to respond to israeli attacks as constant air attack simply blunted their force
>Airpower consistently failed until Desert Storm.
And now it does not. The paradigm shift is complete.
WW2 showed how important air superiority is.
>carriers raping ships
>battle of bong island
>bombing german industrial output back to stoneage level
Germans also did very well with it on the eastern front until they had to use all their air power to defend their cities
German weapons output went up every year? Bomber Harris is considered a failure. This Bomber mafia thread is so stupid
>and poor
Kinda the point innit? If you are wealthy enough to overwhelm everything with planes then of course planes rule. If you do not have the dosh for air superiority like 98% of the countries then cheap arty is the killer.
>russian aidS300/400 can't even handle some fricking Turkroach drones
>apparently they can handle planes with the RCS of a bee
lmao at vatnogs
In fairness incompetent Libyans, Syrians and Armenians can't handle TB2 drones with S300s; have the Russians lost any S300/400s yet to such drones?
You realize most TB2s got shot down both in Lybia and Syria, which is why the frontline has been stable for years in the former?
And in the latter, Turkey dumped like 2 months worth of TB2 strikes and started a pompous "operation shield spring", which prompted turkish shills on twitter to say they will March on Damascus and do regime change/annexation, then syrian command moved some pantsirs and buks to the frontline and this whole affair got memoryholed quicker than Ghost of Queef?
I remember.
/misc/ syria generals from 2020.. golden time.
frick you artillery!
and I feel like the direction of combat is heading back towards trench warfare or something
>and I feel like the direction of combat is heading back towards trench warfare or something
trench warfare only really occurs when you have two forces at a mutual disadvantage to each other
ie. both sides relatively poorly furnished and poorly supplied
not helped by the top-down approach to supply that the russians have, where priority is determined at the highest levels and commanders need to make do with what they have at the tactical level
so while conducive to fighting operations on a low budget, it pretty much encourages attrition warfare
the US army has way more trucks per person than the russian army has, so it can keep up a steady supply to maintain a deep penetration without danger of outrunning supply lines
and they are willing to allow expenditure on the tactical level to determine supply priority, which is also much better at feeding units doing well to allow for better exploitations of breakthroughs
You wrote all that shit to say that they are stuck in trench warfare because neither side could afford an air force or armored force good enough to bypass soviet AA/anti-tank weapons.
>neither side could afford an air force or armored force good enough to bypass soviet AA/anti-tank weapons
>missed the point this hard
trench warfare occured because the russians have way too lean a force to maintain a successful breakthrough
trench warfare is not going to be the norm, you arent going to see ABCTs re-equip themselves for positional warfare
combat will still be around maneuver warfare
>Say something nice about it
Artillery knows neither friend nor foe, only worthy targets
>artillery
Sorry in wars involving actual superpowers air power has and will always be king.
Problem is that even regional powers like France or Italy has an airforce better than Russia.
One German general actually stated that Allies would have never gained air superiority had Germany not spent too much resources on strategic bombers. But Allies also spent large amount of resources on strategic bombers, which means that both sides basically sent crews of strategic bombers to die for little military value, while actually harming their own ability to fight the war. In fact, USSBS has shown that German military production reached its PEAK at actual peak of US strategic bombardment campaign, and only started to slow down after the US re-focused on destroying Oil production and storage facilities over industrial production. It didn't help that the British Night Bombing campaign was instead focused on using the cover of night for petty terror bombing in retaliation for earlier Luftwaffe bombing of Britain.
>One German general actually stated that Allies would have never gained air superiority had Germany not spent too much resources on strategic bombers
germans spent essentially zero dollars on strategic bombers past 1941
the allie air campaign made sure that the germans would only ever build single-engine fighters or twin-engine interceptors to stem the tide of bombers
> In fact, USSBS has shown that German military production reached its PEAK at actual peak of US strategic bombardment campaign, and only started to slow down after the US re-focused on destroying Oil production and storage facilities over industrial production.
as lots of people has pointed out, if you instruct your workers to work triple shifts, and bombing reduces productivty by 25%, you still end up with a net-increase in production even though the bombs had reduced output
wages of destruction goes into more detail
a lot of german "growth" was due to prioritizing replacing numbers on paper by cutting fat on development and cancelling production on spare parts
the real number that should be looked at isnt total production numbers, but how large their real growth would have been compared to how much it did
>USSBS has shown that German military production reached its PEAK at actual peak of US strategic bombardment
post ball bearings and panzer III's
Actual moron take. Yeah the German production was sure amazing by 1945 with all of their factories roads and cities destroyed, moron
The biggest factor in allies winning the air war was radar.
Germany had the largest chance of winning the air war if the head of their surface to air missile program wasn't killed in a bombing raid and they could develop proximity fuses that fit into the SAM V2s as planned. While it wouldn't have been a total victory, it would have made it so costly life wise that daylight bombing would be deemed too fatal. Additionally trusting their V1 data over their turn coat spies would have lead to way more accurate V1 attacks on Britain.
What are the tactical advantages of twin-linking a smaller arty gun to a bigger one like this?
Optical illusion. That's a separate tube.
You can see secondary barrels as spotting rifles on things like recoilless rifles that shoot a ballistically identical projectile to dial in the aim. The Ontos had 4 spotting rifles to go with the 6 recoilless rifles it was packing.
Re-roll to hit.
hehehehehehe you lil shid
>just arranged in a row on an open field
what fricking third world dumbass country is this? Ukraine? Russia?
Are people who say stuff like this really incapable of considering the people who actually do this stuff have considered this and know much more about the subject than them?
If you clump up your artillery on an open field it means that you get spotted and all your tubes get bombed to hell by the enemy. It's simply moronic. You need to spread out and conceal your arty.
Hot damn, vatniks sure are seething in this thread.
My gramps was in the artillery of the commie Polish army. He is a staunch believer in superiority of the commie Poland over contemporary system and he's still horrified with what the Russians are doing in Ukraine.
He lived to be 94 only to see the remnants of the mighty Red Army that he was functionally a part of cannibalize each other in a despicable manner, what a shame.
Pic related, he commanded a battery of these.
The Krab is unshaken
The US has certainly not fought any modern war where the air force gets actually attritioned down
Modern fighter/bombers fleets are very limited
China has the most
You are really good, but seriously you and small recon drones were a match made in heaven please respond to my emails I can only burn holes in the sky for so long before I lose my shit.
>Focusing on artillery instead of air superiority in year of our lord 1991+31
Ballistic missiles and air force able to destroy targets miles away should rule the battlefield. As proven in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya wars.
Last time I asked this the only half decent argument i got is "muh ballistic missiles expensive".
I don't get wtf is going on anymore. I seriously don't understand it. U can see everything with surveillance tech and you have precision rocket munition to make it flat. Everything else is just finishing touch sweeping few guys with ak47 that somehow stayed alive hiding in the basements but the battle is won by then anyways. I don't see myself geek or naive but there is not doubt that technology is suppose to rule the battlefield. wtf ? WHAT THE ACTUAL FRICK ?
no, youre right, its just the cruise missles are very expensive and time consuming to produce. so you will always end up back at artillery
>so you will always end up back at artillery
if you are not fricking poor and don't waste them, you won't, because you will win the war before you're out
Combined arms is the king of warfare. Shit deployment of arty can still be shredded by even the laziest human wave strategy. Also, it's only as good as the eyes on the ground and the communication lines available to the crews.
Who else was watching the start of the war, seeing the missile spam come in -- and when it was over, waiting to see the Russian air force fly in to do SEAD and bombing? And then...nothing? The troops roll in across the border? Who was like, wtf where's the planes?? Why couldn't they SEAD whatever was left of the AD, gain air supremacy, and then go wild? The planes that do come out for ground support are these Su-25 shitpiles lobbing rockets in a ballistic trajectory and won't hit anything.
gee, maybe it had something to do with the massive amount of advanced air defense missile systems all over the place?
americucks are so used to bombing 3rd world shitholes without any military they actually think its as easy as flying in with impunity and just winning
>Does know what SEAD is
You don't have to fly below 5km you know.
>its another americuck who watched the operations room video and thinks SEAD is that simple
american air force has never encountered anything remotely approaching what is in ukraine right now
they couldnt even destroy all of yugoslavias limited AD and managed to lose several planes
>and thinks SEAD is that simple
it isnt that simple
which is why the US has invested so heavily in it
>they couldnt even destroy all of yugoslavias limited AD and managed to lose several planes
literally read the action-reports from the enemy side
they couldnt launch missiles half the time because when AWACS was up and running, shining their radar for even a moment could get them killed
How will that work against an air defense capable of shooting down AWACS? S-400 missiles have their own radars, shoot a few into the approximate area where AWACs is operating and move location.
US definitely has the best SEAD in the world, but SEAD itself is a highly questionable meme. Saddam had near-zero manpad saturation, and the only medium-long range a-a was stationary, with their exact coordinates being known years in advance, and the coalition still lost more planes in one month than Russia in Ukraine.
>How will that work against an air defense capable of shooting down AWACS?
>shine a radar at the AWACS, get hit by a missile
>S-400 missiles have their own radars, shoot a few into the approximate area where AWACs is operating and move location.
>fire at the AWACS, get hit by a missile
>but SEAD itself is a highly questionable meme.
>despite real life use showing it is extemely effective
what are you smoking?
>and the coalition still lost more planes in one month than Russia in Ukraine.
the US navy alone had more planes than the entire russian air force, and each plane was flying several times more sorties than the russian planes
>but SEAD itself is a highly questionable meme.
>despite real life use showing it is extemely effective
Where has it shown that? Please don't bring the one example where the opforce (Iraq) had 520 times less GDP than US, and ~1200 times less GDP than the coalition.
Georgia in 2008 had 130 times smaller GDP than Russia and lost the war in 12 days. By your logic, Russia has vastly more efficient military per dollar spent.
>the US navy alone had more planes than the entire russian air force, and each plane was flying several times more sorties than the russian planes
Because Saddam's army was poor. Show me SEAD working against a country with at least 1/20th of US GDP.
When have any two major powers gone directly head to head in the last 50 years? Pointless
>the coalition still lost more planes in one month than Russia in Ukraine
24 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Iraq between the 2003 invasion and February 2009. Russia has lost 35 since February.
SEAD has never even been attempted against an actual modern fully integrated AD system
I know you love to basedface about how awesome the u.s air force technical demonstration against 3 ancient soviet SAMs manned by 80 i.q moron iraqis was, but whats happening in ukraine is a different beast
First Gulf War had integrated air defense, not the newest SAMs or the highest tech datalink (phones) but it was a real threat and claimed a few kill.s
And if we were fighting either party that would still be true.
>muh SEAD
>muh AWACS
Clown, you are unironically repeating vatnik talking points with 100% accuracy, they also believed that their sci-fi jamming systems and precision munitions would delete Ukrainian air defenses in 2 hours.
Except we know our shit works.
Patriot bros I we gonna tell him?
>despite huge technological progress in other areas.
you say it, the technological progress is in other areas than Russia or Ukraine. that's why they fight like in WW1.
It is force multiplied by counter-battery radar, drones, radios, GPS, and modern logistics. It has improved with technology, not in spite of it.