>>this is supposed to be impressive
To be fair, high altitude bombers is exactly what it was designed to hit, as that what was the USSR feared. So it kinda did its job.
During the Vietnam war, the Soviet Union delivered 95 S-75 systems and 7,658 missiles to the Vietnamese. 6,806 missiles were launched or removed by outdating. According to the Vietnamese, the S-75 shot down 1,046 aircraft, or 31% of all downed US aircraft. By comparison, air-defense guns brought down 60% and 9% were shot down by MiG fighters. The higher rate of anti-aircraft artillery is partially caused by the fact gun units received data from the S-75 radar stations that significantly improved their effectiveness.[17]
>By the conclusion of the Linebacker II campaign, the shootdown rate of the S-75 against the B-52s was 7.52% (15 B-52s were shot down, 5 B-52s were heavily damaged for 266 missiles[19]).
not very impressive
you'll be citing k/d ratios next to prove how you didn't lose.
"We killed 1600 civilians and only lost 20 aircraft so I think you'll find we won, akshually."
>noooooooo dont point out how trash the missile was single digit interception rate is good enough
holy cope
>Was there a Linebacker III? No? Why not?
Because Nixon told the North Vietnamese to sign the damn accords and they agreed in exchange for the bombing to stop.
you'll be citing k/d ratios next to prove how you didn't lose.
"We killed 1600 civilians and only lost 20 aircraft so I think you'll find we won, akshually."
>F-117
F-117 was S-125 though. The S-75 has basically only served to be a threat to aircraft other than its intended heavy bomber targets, its shootdown rate was pretty shit. It was the AA guns that actually did the shooting things down in Vietnam at least, after pilots got spooked by S-75s and got low. As a missile it was fairly rudimentary and its guidance was pretty shitty.
No? It was a huge expenditure and it only worked in Vietnam as it was the first time pilots encountered the threat and they tunnel visioned on it. Improved tactics and training mitigated the issue.
It looks pretty cool, it's as tall as a lamp post, but terrible hit ratio. It did pose some threat during the Vietnam war, and I recall Saddam having some of those but not sure if any ever scored a hit.
So besides the cool aesthetics, it's meh.
I really enjoy watching Americans on the most gung-ho flag-waving anti-foreigner board on the site do mental and verbal gymnastics to prove how they totally won everything even though they didn't.
If my flightsim autism is correct, they're good enough for things like bombers and airlines flying in a straight line at high altitude. It's a big missile with shit maneuverability, so if you're a fighter aircraft you can easily outmaneuver it just by changing course often enough and diving when it launches. Also even the electronic warfare gear of decades old can easily detect when it fires and jam it, so if you're a fighter aircraft and get shot down by those, you suck.
The flared base makes it suitable for anal play.
Patriot has multiple kinzhal shootdowns on record and alternatively british made anti air hasn’t performed very well in Ukraine
This level of obsession can't be healthy, warriortard.
Russian garbage
Tell that to U-2 and B-52 crews.
>shoots down slow, non-maneuverable targets
>this is supposed to be impressive
You gonna start adding passenger jets to kills next?
>>this is supposed to be impressive
To be fair, high altitude bombers is exactly what it was designed to hit, as that what was the USSR feared. So it kinda did its job.
Should i post the famous pics an RF-4 and an F-105D being downed by a SA-2? You absolute fucking idiot.
>kills U2
>also kills a soviet fighter in the area, just for good measure
its okay they gave the guy a medal
the SA-2 was pretty solid, and ahead of what western nations were fielding at the time.
retard
cope
During the Vietnam war, the Soviet Union delivered 95 S-75 systems and 7,658 missiles to the Vietnamese. 6,806 missiles were launched or removed by outdating. According to the Vietnamese, the S-75 shot down 1,046 aircraft, or 31% of all downed US aircraft. By comparison, air-defense guns brought down 60% and 9% were shot down by MiG fighters. The higher rate of anti-aircraft artillery is partially caused by the fact gun units received data from the S-75 radar stations that significantly improved their effectiveness.[17]
big-missile-on-a-rail is so aesthetic compared to box launchers
A fine flying dildo to kill you muddafaca
>easily kills U2
>easily kills F117
>easily kills F35
nothing personal, westoids
also swatted B-52s out of the sky like flies.
>By the conclusion of the Linebacker II campaign, the shootdown rate of the S-75 against the B-52s was 7.52% (15 B-52s were shot down, 5 B-52s were heavily damaged for 266 missiles[19]).
not very impressive
The American pulls out his excel spreadsheet to prove that really they didn't lose after all, it was just a special form of winning.
>noooooooo dont point out how trash the missile was single digit interception rate is good enough
holy cope
Was there a Linebacker III? No? Why not?
>Was there a Linebacker III? No? Why not?
Because Nixon told the North Vietnamese to sign the damn accords and they agreed in exchange for the bombing to stop.
you'll be citing k/d ratios next to prove how you didn't lose.
"We killed 1600 civilians and only lost 20 aircraft so I think you'll find we won, akshually."
>loses 7.5% of your indispensable bomber fleet doing a stupid mission
>yeah that’s fine
This is Russian levels of cope.
I think SA-2 is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills B-52s and doesn't afraid of anything.
The F-117 was a SA-125, retard.
>F-117
F-117 was S-125 though. The S-75 has basically only served to be a threat to aircraft other than its intended heavy bomber targets, its shootdown rate was pretty shit. It was the AA guns that actually did the shooting things down in Vietnam at least, after pilots got spooked by S-75s and got low. As a missile it was fairly rudimentary and its guidance was pretty shitty.
>after pilots got spooked by S-75s and got low
So... it was highly effective then.
No? It was a huge expenditure and it only worked in Vietnam as it was the first time pilots encountered the threat and they tunnel visioned on it. Improved tactics and training mitigated the issue.
>it wasn’t highly effective, because it was only highly effective due to XYZ
Holy PrepHoleope
It looks pretty cool, it's as tall as a lamp post, but terrible hit ratio. It did pose some threat during the Vietnam war, and I recall Saddam having some of those but not sure if any ever scored a hit.
So besides the cool aesthetics, it's meh.
Yes, I was right about Desert Storm, in the infamous F-16 video dodging sams, he is also shot by SA-2 missiles, which is the S-75.
It shoots down stealth planes very well
That was S-125, not S-75.
I really enjoy watching Americans on the most gung-ho flag-waving anti-foreigner board on the site do mental and verbal gymnastics to prove how they totally won everything even though they didn't.
I'm here to see turdies seethe about literally everything.
If my flightsim autism is correct, they're good enough for things like bombers and airlines flying in a straight line at high altitude. It's a big missile with shit maneuverability, so if you're a fighter aircraft you can easily outmaneuver it just by changing course often enough and diving when it launches. Also even the electronic warfare gear of decades old can easily detect when it fires and jam it, so if you're a fighter aircraft and get shot down by those, you suck.
Good for when it was made and singlehandedly create the "Fly low and they can't see you on radar" meme. Nowadays it's just outdated trash.