>the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless

>the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless

what went wrong?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    say it with me anon
    "The operational failure of the Russian army is not indicative of a type weapons ineffectiveness."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Repeat after me "I will keep up the procurement of all vehicles in order to ensure politicians get their pay offs"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you try to make it seem like there's no middle ground between the two? I mean this isn't Russia or China, western politicans don't have unlimited power to do whatever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Western politicians don't have the power to do whatever
          >covid lockdowns
          It's going to be funny to see what you say in 20 years, especially considering that authoritarian stated and western "democracies" reacted the same way to a flu, made by those governments.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Terrible example.
            Lockdowns had majority public support.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just because you have a bunch of idiots running the war and a bunch of idiots in the army doesn't mean the equipment is useless. It just means you have too many idiots in the system.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And more importantly, no one competent to replace said idiots, no matter how many of them you decide to defenestrate

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In all fairness, if you're doing procurement for the Russian military you should already know that your equipment is going to be used by idiots and plan accordingly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can imagine you watching that scene from Die Hard 3 when Samuel L Jackson tries to kill Jeremy Irons but doesn't know to take the selector witch off of safe, and then saying to yourself
        >"Wow... why do people use guns? They're useless."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Le heckin reference. I too like black man movies reddit friend.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you're the only moron here polfag. og die hard movies were kino

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks pentagon wars was real life

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      The equipment itself actually wouldn't be half bad if it had proper maintenance and wasn't operated by drunken retards.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The equipment itself actually wouldn't be half bad if it had proper maintenance and wasn't operated by drunken retards.
        Or if Russia had the money and technology to upgrade them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >wasn't operated by drunken retards
        This is accounted for, to some extent. Note design aspects such as unnecessarily large fins on aircraft (to ensure an inebriated pilot has more time to recognise and unfuck dangerous situation), and the fact that equipment is no longer designed to require ethanol as fuel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        or all the advanced tech wasn't constantly being looted for drinking money/the officer's new Mercedes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not exactly the pinnacle of aeronautical tech, but remember when the soviets had to place all MIG-25 fuel under armed guard because their base personel kept drinking it? Imagine getting carpet bombed in a cold war gone hot scenario because ivan got smashed off of your aviation fuel and now your air to air ohka bomb.
        yeah.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          *and now your air to air ohka bomb can't take off
          I'm very tired.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          anon,i think you're confusing that with the Tu-22's cooling system.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It wasn't fuel, FYI. MIG-25 used ethanol as a coolant.

          anon,i think you're confusing that with the Tu-22's cooling system.

          Both MIG-25 and Tu-22 used ethanol coolants.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Everything would be fine if it wasn't so bad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      requirements:
      - the crews/operators are property trained in the use of the system
      - the crews/operators are properly trained in the correct tactics to employ the system, including combined arms / co-operative action
      - the equipment is properly maintained and supplied

      I'll bet Russia failed to meet some of these

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FPBP

      If “russia fails at X, therefore X is obsolete” was true, we’d have to give up on the concept of standing armies, society and probably humanity itself.
      Vatniks are a bunch of subhuman troglodytes, morons in the snow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >we’d have to give up on the concept of standing armies, society and probably humanity itself.
        You forget to include sobriety

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Can't fail at what is never attempted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lenin actually tried to get russia off vodka, the bolshiveks were actually anti-alcholol - in old films from his rule you'll see them smashing vodka bottles like chains. it's just that stalin took over and went 'yeah the tsars had the right idea in keeping people compliant on this' and reinstated it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Also let's not forget that superior Russian tech may only be superior on paper.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God I'm so tired of shouting this into the void. Tanks aren't obsolete Russia was literally doing shit that WW1 generals figured out not to do about 5 minutes after they first started using tanks. Helicopters aren't obsolete they perform their function beautifully if the airspace they're in isn't saturated with fucking anti-air defenses. It's annoying how many people think that war has changed when really all we're seeing is what we already knew. Russians are fucking retarded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >weapon system doesn't have an everything proof shield that btfo's all forms of attack in any and all scenarios.
        >must be obsolete.
        It's all so tiresome.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A drone factory can be disabled by a guy hitting machinery with a rock
          grug wins again

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Helicopters work you just need an opponent that has no modern tech

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You need to secure the skies in the initial invasion by knocking out radar and anti-air defenses, which is literally day one shit for every fucking army that can actually rub two braincells together. Yeah helos are vulnerable to systems designed to counter them. Who fucking knew?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/ExBtRv3.jpg

            >How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
            Apache's Hellfire missile can fire from the edge of or outside the range of MANPAD's, besides that they have IR jammers and flairs.
            People keep talking about the cost of the missile used to kill an Apache as if it's not true for any weapon, birth a man, feed, raise and school him, train him in the army and equip him with weapons and kit, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a $.50 bullet kills him? Sounds like soldiers are obsolete.
            It's not about the cost of the helicopter but the amount of damage it can do to the enemy before it croaks and picrel can do a lot of damage.
            >I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
            What do police need with Hellfire missiles?

            >How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
            Not get shot at by them in the first place, and kill you over the horizon.

            Has this been tested out? The "easily" part

            As survivability increasingly depends on standoff range, hover and agility is irrelevant and aircraft that large payload at low cost is more effective. I mean you can throw brimstones on any turboprop and have enough money and payload leftover to fill it with anti-missile defensive systems.

            Pic: Team Portable turbo jet powered loitering anti-air missile with imaging infrared sensor feeding back to operator. Your helicopter'd better out range the radio on this thing, or you are getting engaged.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia. That's all.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless in hands of Russians
    ftfy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Upvote!

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I understand its part of the aesthetic but I'm just gonna say it, Faux-Cyrillic is such an eyesore, even moreso than actual Cyrillic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I understand its part of the aesthetic but I'm just gonna say it, Faux-Cyrillic is such an eyesore, even moreso than actual Cyrillic

      Not to mention how annoying/confusing it is to read it, if you actually know the real language.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    apparently their maintenance crew is comprised of russians

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Attack helicopters were proven useless in GW2. But maybe you missed that on account of not being born yet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Attack helicopters were proven useless during this one conflict where they were used extremely heavily, also nobody stopped using them, even right now, and they're still useful even though the helicopters are suicidally old and garbage.
      You are either not as old as you wanna seem, or you are but it didn't do anything for you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's it like being retarded on the internet?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
        >The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use. Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >20 more years of Apache guncamera footage after this occurred
          Yeah, it's nothing. Technology also moved on and modern helicopters can dump missiles without ever being exposed to ground fire in situations like this.
          NEXT.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you provide them? Against a near peer foe not some farmers in a desert?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Inb4 leddit
              Anon they are still using attack helicopters that are completely obsolete by all indications, against near peer foes, right now.
              >https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/vy9ttw/ukrainian_combat_helicopters_at_work/
              And again, modern chopper just dumps Spike NLOS on you from 30+ km away and calls that lunch.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >high angle unguided rocket barrages
                I wish I could see footage of the impact site so I could know if that shit's even worth the fuel to get the heli up in the first place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NATO-alligned choppers just use an APKWS equivalent from 10-15km away

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm gonna hit you with the hard facts, chief. Ukraine right now in the current timeline is NATO aligned.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don't play dumb, all their choppers are post-Soviet dogshit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Even for rich western countries, the munitions stockpiles don't exist to throw super expensive, modern missiles at the other guys for this many months of all out warfare. I remember seeing somewhere that France can't even supply their own expeditionary forces in Africa with ordinary bullets, and so it's down to American factories to fill the gaps.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Rich western countries would have ended this war in a month, nefore ever having to worry about stockpiles of missiles and parts. That shit is for bean counters. That's the summary of the entire thread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, they wouldn't. The rule of war for decades has been non-escalation and proportional response. Nobody wants to do anything to provoke nukes and that means protracted """peace keeping""" operations and nothing else.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh nooooooooooks
                Mostly an empty threat if this conflict is anything to go by, and also there are non-nuclear near peer scenarios.
                Either way, it's bean-counter cope for obviously being incorrect about actual weapons and forces.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's an empty threat all the way up until it isn't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Get back to me when you can talk about the other 2/3ds of the post that you ignored.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Against a near peer foe
              The United States has no near peer foe.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Technically a near peer could inclue Iraq the first time, which thatfag leftnout of his timescale explicitly because Apaches did ATGM attacks of radar installations during that war which is really inconvenient to his line of bullshit.
                But yeah, no actual peers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Karbala is a horrible examples to try and prove helicopters as useless, because it's a scenario where the US did nearly everything wrong.
          >SEAD mission uncoordinated with attack
          >helos orders are "lol go find the bad guys"
          >Iraqis get advance warning
          >ambush fully prepared for the helos
          >fly directly into a killzone of autocannons and RPGs
          >remain in the area for half an hour hunting for the targets
          >all but one Apaches make it back to base
          >crew casualties: 1 wounded, 2 captured
          Karbala was a shitshow, but trying to use it to prove that helos are obsolete is just as retarded.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >weapon is used 24/7 for 8 months
    >some get destroyed

    Shocking.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It wouldn't be so tiring if there weren't technical limitations creating situations where Russian helicopters are getting shot down in ways that NATO choppers obviously wouldn't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Such as?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Lack of PGMs
          >Bad SACLOS PGMs that you can't launch while moving, gotta hold still and guide
          >Bad navigation, gotta use a TomTom on the dash or follow roads everywhere
          >shitty airframes that shake like tweakers and get no maintenance, shit breaks faster and lol they never fix it
          Helicopters have always been vulnerable but comparing this shit to Longbow radar and Hellfires is obviously not realistic. To say nothing of where things are gong to go from there with longer range NLOS missiles with dual and tri-mode seekeers being standard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The only real issue is the lack of the more modern F&F missiles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The only real issue is the lack of the more modern F&F missiles.

            No the real issue is all of that and more. Russia is incredibly vulnerable to the helicopter game, that super expensive conveyance is one of the only ways to explooit Siberia.

            Russian military and their culture is heavily dependent on helicopters and as anon pointed out, they are shaky rattletraps that really have no bsuiness flying, and require massive maintenance and advanced construction philosophies to achieve, and Russia is at least 2 generations behind.

            Slapping avionics and missiles on it isn't going to fix the issue.

            Landing gear on Russia jets may be awesome because it's overbuilt, but the helicopter is not best served by the industrial age. It's an information age machine and Russian helicopters suck suck suck for that reason.

            Big fat bugs for the Wolverines to swat is all they've been for 40 years.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The only thing that might happen is eventually manned helis will be superceeded by drone helis in combat roles.
              They are still a versatile and flexible machine, being able to be used in rough terrain, play hide&seek with radars, loitering times far above planes, etc.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you're talking about essentially a modern helicopter but remote controlled, I don't see it happening. Like the anon you're replying to said, they're struggling to deal with cold war era choppers. They're gonna add another layer of sophistication on top of that to fix the issues they have now? When they can't even figure out GPS for their manned aircraft? And this is the Russia going forward after this war, almost certainly a shadow of even the shit show they were in the 90s and 2000s.

                If you're talking about something smaller, more akin to the grenade drones we've seen used in Ukraine, then that's probably what they will be reduced to in the future. But it's hardly a replacement for a fleet of attack choppers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're forgetting the biggest one
            >poor C4I
            The entire idea of combined arms warfare is that the different elements work together to cover the weaknesses of the others. Helicopters are tank destroyers/assault guns that travel at 150mph, they are your rapid reaction force to cover your infantry/mechanized units, but that requires them to be in communication with the units on the ground.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > shaky helicopters
            probably down to poor or non-existent maintenance -> not balancing the rotor blades
            something along the lines of https://helicoptermaintenancemagazine.com/article/good-vibes-rotor-2ys0kblade-track-and-balance

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Or it's a non-issue to begin with.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Let me know the last time NATO fought people with more than camels and swords...wait a minute...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Did that stop the bombs though?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Your own example makes you look even more retarded, ironically enough.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession, mr. mcdonald.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because the aircraft had flown the same route for weeks. A M8 Greyhound took out a Tiger II during the Battle of the Bulge. You won't expect that to happen multiple times. A British officer took out a German armored car with an umbrella, again, you would not expect that to happen regularly. Shit happens in war. But Russia has lost multiple helicopters to AT weapons.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ah yes the great defeat at the hands of serbia that forced the us out of the balkans and led to the reabsorbtion of the breakaway province by serbia

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          reminder that this was done by a Hungarian dude, the Serbs can't even claim this as one of their own deeds lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >some get destroyed

      25% of all Ka-52 that exist have been destroyed by Ukraine 😀

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Compare sorties to desert storm, then compare airframes lost.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Helicopters useless
    How do you move troops quickly around a jungle? Or mountains? Or even through a forest? Have them walk? How about how you get injured out quickly? How about moving people to and from a carrier? How about hunting submarines? How about moving equipment like artillery around and other goods quickly? Main issue with Helicopters in the ukraine war is Russia fucking shit up. America has learned its lesson during Vietnam War on how to use helicopters. You can tell Helicopters still have an important role because we are replacing them with newer one in the FVLP. They are also introducing a replacement scout attack helicopter which will most likely be the X2 raider.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if you have complete air superiority and completely suppressed enemy air defenses, then you can use helicopters

      whoa

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Or just dont fly them near air defenses. So behind your lines or to areas you know where it is not.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What stops a group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines" ?

          >Helicopters useless
          How do you move troops quickly around a jungle? Or mountains? Or even through a forest? Have them walk? How about how you get injured out quickly? How about moving people to and from a carrier? How about hunting submarines? How about moving equipment like artillery around and other goods quickly? Main issue with Helicopters in the ukraine war is Russia fucking shit up. America has learned its lesson during Vietnam War on how to use helicopters. You can tell Helicopters still have an important role because we are replacing them with newer one in the FVLP. They are also introducing a replacement scout attack helicopter which will most likely be the X2 raider.

          Uh, how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist... what the fuck are you doing in a jungle in the first place?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >group of civvies driving manpads "behind your lines"
            Couple issues You have checkpoints etc "behind your lines". It's not actually that easy to transport weapons. Also this is the same for all weapons. Man pads are big and obvious.
            It's like saying
            >what stops civvies from going behind lines and launching rpgs at your fighter jets on runways and hangers or firing manpads at your jets when flying slowish near airfields landing or after take off
            This would be way better then civvies shooting some helicopters with manpads

            >how do you evac wounded with a chopper if enemies exist
            Eliminate enough of the enemy and pull the wounded away far enough so that it's relatively safe for evac. Remember if you are in a forest, helicopter can evac you without even needing to land. This was extremely useful in the Vietnam War when fighting in jungles. They drop rope you hook the guy up and they pull them into the helicopter.
            >what are you doing in a jungle
            Fighting a war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Doesn't have local air superiority
        >Air assets get BTFO
        Woah so hard to figure out you fucking stupid krokadil sucking cumsack
        Kys

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if you have complete naval superiority and completely suppressed enemy shore defenses, then you can use ships
        Wow, crazy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      umm sweaty you need to get with the times

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >super short flight time
        >can't be mid-air refueled
        >can't carry all your kit with you
        Flying around over some water is neat, but I want to see them take it though a proper bit of rough terrain.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I choose to think of it as the next step toward something more useful. It's neat to see though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, it's definitely got the cool factor, but I think we're a long ways off from seeing some meme hoversuit spec ops shit with them.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          slap a rifle on the right arm. slap a 40m grenade on the left arm. we starship trooper's marauders now

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I mean this is like saying the Wright brother's airplane is proof planes have no future in combat.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >biggest ground war in Europe since dubya dubya two
    >le putler lost THREE helicopters in a day!!!
    You act like equipment getting destroyed in total war is some unprecedented thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your line of thinking has already been addressed, see

      It wouldn't be so tiring if there weren't technical limitations creating situations where Russian helicopters are getting shot down in ways that NATO choppers obviously wouldn't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        When you only have about 100, the amount of losses they are having is a big deal. Losing 10 Konigstigers was a big deal too.

        >total war
        BASED retard. Also, Russia has lost nearly 200 helicopters and 200+ aircraft to a nation they claimed 'didn't have an airforce after 1hrs 24mins'. They lost a cruiser to a nation without a navy. So yes, losing 3 helicopters in a day to a nation that is smaller and poorer than it is embarrassing.

        Shill brigade dogpilers

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Multiple responses all within the cooldown.
          Maybe you're just retarded. Yeah that's probably what it is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            have a nice day europoor

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Self-loathing on the internet
              Post guns.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Now you gay

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok. Where does this leave us?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We are both not shills and simply have differing opinions. Posting guns is certified non gay behavior

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I accept your surrender

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reddit reply, Reddit site

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Fuck off then telegram chud

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When you only have about 100, the amount of losses they are having is a big deal. Losing 10 Konigstigers was a big deal too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >total war
      BASED retard. Also, Russia has lost nearly 200 helicopters and 200+ aircraft to a nation they claimed 'didn't have an airforce after 1hrs 24mins'. They lost a cruiser to a nation without a navy. So yes, losing 3 helicopters in a day to a nation that is smaller and poorer than it is embarrassing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >le putler lost THREE helicopters in a day!!!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    vaxxed

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are in a difficult situation.
    Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
    Helicopters have a lot more life in them currently because they're still important for transport and transit. Attack helicopters have always been less than ideal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs that aren't more expensive than the missiles themselves.
      This has never mattered militarily. Victory is worth more than any weapon. Tanks with APS are here to say, it behooves the ones fighting them to build more expensive missiles to counter them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Attack helicopters are actually pretty good. You just don't yolo them in where their air defenses are. air defenses are pretty easy to tell visually from satellites and they also carry around a huge beacon call radar. Man pads are actually not as good as you would suspect because helicopters actually carry round thermal optics around. They can see you before you see them. You cant fire a manpad off if you are dead.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Its hard to come up with defenses to modern ATGMs
      >APS
      >High resolution, magnified, thermal optics
      >screening infantry
      >scouting drones
      A functioning country can already solve the ATGM issue.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
        Tanks really have to be a lot more mobile these days than they once were required to be.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >APS is good for one missile, maybe one from each direction, and are expensive and complex typically. The missiles themselves are cheaper and quicker to make. Or they can be easily neutralized first with simple dumb RPGs that can be made for penance before the ATGM is fired on a target.
          That's still a massive hinderance compared to being able to reliably destroy them from standoff range using man-portable weapons. Tank mobility has increased alongside it's need, and the opportunity to just lob rockets at an APS until it runs out doesn't realistically exist against real tactics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean you can bundle a small RPG warhead into the firing procedure of a ATGM.
            The warhead leads by some amount and is just a 'dumb bomb' and then the ATGM comes in afterwards. It'd be a relative increase in weight, but not dramatically more complex on a technical level.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah that's the RPG-30 thing, they've already adapted fire control to ignore the decoy. The Israelis did it with digital recognition, the Germans just said fuck it and made theirs engage both contacts simultaneously.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Man, it's almost like that list of systems work together to provide protection, rather than just expecting the APS to make a tank invincible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hard to reasonably build armor thick enough to resist a ATGM everywhere. And they're fast enough and cheap enough to be used with little reservation.

            Yeah that's the RPG-30 thing, they've already adapted fire control to ignore the decoy. The Israelis did it with digital recognition, the Germans just said fuck it and made theirs engage both contacts simultaneously.

            Good to hear.
            Wonder if doing tandem RPG warheads could make that an untenable solution.
            There are only so many shots you can fit in a APS system. I wonder if its easier to cram more in, or easier to give it too many obscuring targets.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >anon is illiterate
              Nowhere did I mention armor as a counter to ATGMs.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what went wrong?
    Your brain when you thought "the ukraine war proved that tanks and now helicopters are useless"

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It just proves Russia has forgotten the concept of combined arms. Supported by a competent air force, infantry, and intelligence apparatus, they can be used to devastating effect.

    Unfortunately the only thing Russians are good at is levelling things with massed artillery, something they can't do when their terrible logistics system is more than 30 miles away from a railhead, so...

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So, according to vatnig shills:
    >tanks are obsolete
    >helicopters are obsolete
    >Jets are obsolete
    >cruisers are obsolete
    >body armor is obsolete

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      War is obsolete

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My finger is hurting from how many upvotes I'm having to give today. Keep it up Ukrainesisters! WE WILL WIN!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Tanks are useless
    >Helicopters are useless
    >Look at these sand/vodka morons using outdated equipment badly in a bad overall doctrine of use
    have a nice day tourist

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Will you say the same when an ICBM inevitably explodes in a silo? That's a week away at most

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Targeting systems got better as quickly as technology did. The cope coming from retards who don't think this would happen to American helicopters/tanks is honestly comical. It's a slow moving massive object that isn't agile. No shit, they're easy targets. Us Americans can get away with it because we invade literal cave people, like Ukrainians, but the cave people we fought weren't financed/armed by a country with a larger military budget than what it spends on Healthcare.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia wasn't smart enough to know how evolving technology was going to alter the battlefield.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what went wrong?

    Russians were operating them.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks might still have some uses and they could adapt, but attack helicopters could actually be obsolete in a few decades.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if helicopters as we know them go out of style, some other kind of fast-moving all terrain artillery/anti-tank vehicle will replace them, just like helicopters replaced tank destroyers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but attack helicopters could actually be obsolete in a few decades.
      You have included "could" and "a few decades" so I don't feel the need to argue with you, that very well may be the case. However, that's quite a bit different then declaring that they are already obsolete.
      (Logistics/Utility wise they will stick around longer, just like the horse.)

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The same people who send soldiers into battle with Air-soft armor and cardboard inserts cannot into Helicopters and Tanks

    Truly it is a mystery OP.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if tanks are so useless now why are both russians and ukes so desperate to get a hold of as many more as they can?

    why did all major powers keep increasing tank production in WW2 even when tens of thousands of them got knocked out?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tanks and helicopters are now useless
    No, tanks and helicopters are now useless against the west

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wtf are they smoking
    https://tass-ru.translate.goog/politika/16150577?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I know!

      https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/55555b30-ed4d-4fe9-af19-7f0a72eaa5b8

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You could equally argue on the same logic that this war has proven that through Kalshnikov rifle is also useless. But we all know that isn't so. You can have the best equipment in the world, but in the hands of untrained, undisciplined and poorly led retards, it doesn't count for shit.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >my threads on F35 failures keep getting me banned
    >but OP can spam whatever crock of horseshit he wants because its pro-Uko propaganda

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe the issue is the lens you are analysizing the threads through?

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tanks are not obsolete. At worst a tank is a direct fire support platform. Nothing can replace that.

    attack helicopters are. Their job can be done by drones- recon and strike

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >attack helicopters are. Their job can be done by drones- recon and strike
      Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles from a field, can't have it hug the earth and pop up to fire either.
      At least until they make a serious attack helicopter drone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Can't operate a drone that carries 16 hellfire missiles
        In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that
        >cant do popup
        I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
        t. tried this tactic in dcs multiplayer

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >In a near peer conflict you will get shit coming your way after engaging 2 targets max. Might as well rtb after that
          Hellfire is a fire and forget missile.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-78_Longbow
          >The APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once; an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.
          It's meant to pick off as many targets as it can in a very short amount of time.
          >I think popup attacks work on a false pretense that helicopter is safe behind a hill and engages a known threat. Ukraine has showed us that even static frontlines are "leaky" and a manpads team can be anywhere to whoop your ass
          Well, then you maybe lose a helicopter, that is war, shit gets broke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the problem is not how many targets you can engage simultaneously its how many targets present themselves at one time. These multikill shots like taking out an entire tank platoon with one salvo are plausible but probably rare.
            If you have good intelligence and lets say have set up target points beforehand its possible but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >If you have good intelligence
              That's the big difference between NATO and its enemies, so much money has gone into that. Apaches would be half the cost or less without all those sensors and communications gear.
              >but then it becomes a question of if there are platforms to do the job with less risk
              Ones that can immediately take off from a field and stay under the radar? Because a Predator style drone is open to high flying radar guided missile attacks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well if its a Pre Planned target, artillery has even better response time with much less risk. Or himars. Or a cruise missile. Or a suicide drone.
                If youre talking deep penetration strikes those are just not happening. Way too risky.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why yes, having lots of options is a good idea. None of those will bring the pain of 2 dozen Apache helicopters nor does artillery have the flexibility to be transferred 300km away in an hour. Attack helicopters have incredible mobility and can be where you need them quick.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >flies into your window
    Nothing personnel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      New HIMARS kills just dropped?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    webm related: proof hammers and nails are useless.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >hang out on a highway straight
      >Ma Dews
      I mean they have to fly down those road b/c Russia is in the 1960s, so you could easily smack them down.

      >12 O'clock Igor

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think there is inherently an engineering problem with those helicopters, they fly and shoot just fine. The fact is simply, they get shot down. I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.

    How would an Apache counter MANPADs?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
      See the MANPAD man before he sees you and shoot him essentially

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Has this been tested out? The "easily" part

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I said essentially not easily. The apache has hig rez high magnification stabilized thermal optics, using that and good communications with other assets in the area, the apache knows where you are before you do and kills you in a way that does not allow you to kill it back

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
      Not get shot at by them in the first place, and kill you over the horizon.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How would an Apache counter MANPADs?
      Apache's Hellfire missile can fire from the edge of or outside the range of MANPAD's, besides that they have IR jammers and flairs.
      People keep talking about the cost of the missile used to kill an Apache as if it's not true for any weapon, birth a man, feed, raise and school him, train him in the army and equip him with weapons and kit, hundreds of thousands of dollars and a $.50 bullet kills him? Sounds like soldiers are obsolete.
      It's not about the cost of the helicopter but the amount of damage it can do to the enemy before it croaks and picrel can do a lot of damage.
      >I think attack helicopters should be used by the police and not the army.
      What do police need with Hellfire missiles?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If your tech level isn't to the point of makign specific hardcore maintenance second nature to your lowest citizens who are likely to work on helos, then helos are trash.

        Better off with Turcanos or crop dusters tbqh.

        Helos have like 15 totally unique and bespoke parts that are ridiculously expensive and that can't be reduced. So if you can't keep them in the latest generation, they're a waste.

        Wind turbines can't exist without cheap (ecologically disastrous) rare earth metals. It's not possible to put copper and huge magnets up there to generate power from wind, the mathematics drop off the curve and not worth.

        Helos are that way. If you don't ahve necessarily rare, bespoke parts on them, they fucking suck.

        IN fact helos probably kept russia in the advanced Industrial Age and they recognize that, and just forging rotor shafts and shit like that keeps Russia from being a Khazaki tipi village.

        But anyway if you really can't field a *force* of helos that are really effective, they are not worth it.

        Intercontinental bombing before the 707 and jet age is the same way. Completely, utterly expense waste of money, Russia should nto have even tried tbqf.

        Russia should give up on helos and focus on QC. They'd be better off with quality roads, railroads, and other basic infrastructure first.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Soldier dies in 1 bullet
    >have to wait 18 years before you can get another soldier
    Humans are obsolete

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    attack helicopters are the technology that’s actually going obsolete/replaced by drones any marginal benefits (if there is any) of helicopters is offset by price. The difference in weapons and survivability is practically zero. Tanks can’t really be replaced doctrine-wise where as drones and attack helicopters can have the same armament.
    Not saying that attack helicopters are useless but they are expensive. Also not saying transport helicopters are obsolete.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's sad to find that the KA52 sucks, I've always thought it was the most aesthetically pleasing attack chopper.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So does that mean paratroopers aren't obsolete after all
    If their apparent replacements aren't worth shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we should just combine them. have B2's drop air deployable attack helis deep behind enemy lines.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what went wrong?
    drones are more efficient
    only need a spectrum from high cost high altitude recon and detection drones down to cheaper drones of varying range and payload and cost to match particular target and risk
    artillery and missiles for targets above/beyond conventional drone payload and range, assisted in targeting by.....more drones
    remote pilots are safer w/ higher morale
    raytheon and lockheed martin are happy because they have higher granularity of pricing and steady churn of drone replacement

    really the only thing drones cant do yet is be a stable low caliber gun platform

    you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping gays in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you'll have dirt cheap drone racers with 9mm zipping and weaving through cities soon enough, popping gays in the head and zipping away, or just dropping grenades

      low latency remote video is too unreliable for fast agile drone piloting
      video works for drone missile or payload drop platforms because because they operate above the buildings and trees that obstruct higher frequency band, nor do they need to quickly dart around

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >helicopters getting shot down
    >drones getting shot down
    >planes getting shot down
    >tanks getting destroyed
    >wheeled vehicles getting destroyed
    >artillery getting destroyed
    >ships getting sunk
    >infantry getting killed
    The Ukraine war has objectively proven that literally all military technology is obsolete and useless.
    t. a couple absolute retards on PrepHole

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      out of all of these the attack helicopter one has the most merit. just by being outcompeted by drones like bayraktar, just like how scout helicopters got replaced by drones

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    so like...
    the army is working on making active protection systems for helicopters right?
    if they work on tanks... they might work on aircraft.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *