Why is American tech performing so well in Ukraine?

Why is American tech performing so well in Ukraine? From javelins knocking out multiple armored vehicles in one sitting to HIMARS blowing up ammo dumps 70km Devine enemy lines. The Ukrainians have even started painting murals of the javelin and naming their babies after it. How long until the first HIMARS mural?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >why actual modern tech and proven and continuously updated equipment wrecking outdated cold war slav shit and tech that had 90% of their development cost embezzled away
    It's a mystery.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because russians suck and use outdated equipment

      Yeah that didnt work in vietnam

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah that didnt work in vietnam
        Vietnamese are an intelligent and hard working people. Russians are russians.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Vietnamese were tough bastards that had a battle-hardened core of men who had spent their entire lives fighting for their country's freedom. They were actually fighting for a cause that even the most braindead moron can get behind (namely: freedom from foreign occupiers). Meanwhile, they were fighting South Vietnamese (who often didn't even have food or ammo because South Vietnam's government corruption was on the same level as Russia's) and an increasingly unmotivated US army. The US kept things from falling apart, but as soon as they left (because the US lost any motivation to stay), South Vietnam got eaten.

        Russia is now facing the same problem. Russia is fighting a highly motivated army whose soldiers are often literally defending the land and cities they were born in and have family in, while all that Russia has is a bunch of buttholes that are just there for the paycheck and some morons who were dumb enough to swallow propaganda.

        Superior technology is definitely helpful, but Ukraine's will to fight has been absolutely instrumental in actually making that tech a worthwhile advantage.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Ukrainians HATE the Russian invader. This is personal.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Actually, it did. The US won every battle. It was only political hobbling that kept us from winning the war.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Stop coping ffs. We didn't "win every battle" in the strategic sense dipshit. Shooting asiatics doesnt win wars, it just wins firefights. War is politics continued by other means. We lost the frickin war. Accept it and move on.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >His retort concedes that they won every battle and failed politically
            What did he mean by this?

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              You can't seperate the two as you inhale copium. Militarily, we failed. Politically we failed. The two are not seperate arenas. Even tactically the extreme waste that went into killing relatively small numbers of asiatics was a military failure. Every "won battle" was a defeat in the truer sense. Tired of seeing people thump their chests over how we totally definitely would have won we just didnt because we didnt feel like it.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >Militarily, we failed
                point out where
                >killing relatively small numbers of asiatics
                lol

                it was a political loss and net loss, but you've been buck broken by the moron spam

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                No, you very much can seperate the two you fricking spastic.
                >Military: did you win every battle and dominate the area of operations? Y/N
                >Political: did you solve the underlying socio-political issues causing the insurgency? Y/N

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >>did we kill a lot of asiatics? (yes)
                >>did we lose the fricking war anyway by not defeating the insurgency? (yes)
                Correct. The military operation was a success the political operation was a failure.

                This level of idiocy on your behalf suggests some sort of alterior motivation as no one could possibly be this idiotic.

                >Win as many set piece battles as you want, you didn't move the front, because the front is all around you. The NVA and the Viet Cong represent the same enemy in a different disciplines. Like branches of their military. You can beat the NVA up and down the country. And they did
                You're literally agreeing verbatim with their premise you fricking autist.

                The US lost the war in Vietnam. Just accept it and keep it moving.

                And since the entire war was about politics and regime change, the US lost its primary objective, while the North Vietnamese won theirs. Killing random people doesn't make a winner. A side can lose more people but win as long as their primary objectives are met.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >The US lost the war in Vietnam.
                Literally every single person in this thread is in agreement. No one has disputed this. You are arguing with ghosts.

                >A whole load of cope conflating political objectives with military objectives
                I'm sorry America did whatever it did to you, your people or whatever shit hole you come from.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >We didn't "win every battle" in the strategic sense
            Point out the lost battles, then, dipshit. Pushing north vietnamese back into their part of the jungle was very much a military success while it lasted.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              >Militarily, we failed
              point out where
              >killing relatively small numbers of asiatics
              lol

              it was a political loss and net loss, but you've been buck broken by the moron spam

              And then we lost the fricking war you absolute morons. Its not the Napoleonic age where wars are decided in major battles. Its like 1960s staff officers are literally posting in this thread. Its an insurgency. Win as many set piece battles as you want, you didn't move the front, because the front is all around you. The NVA and the Viet Cong represent the same enemy in a different disciplines. Like branches of their military. You can beat the NVA up and down the country. And they did. But that. doesn't. matter. The fact that that is still not understood is so painful and a reason we lost in the middle east too. Killing shitskins and asiatics accomplishes absolutely nothing. Stop talking about the bodycount, they tried that in the 60s too. It doesn't matter.

              No, you very much can seperate the two you fricking spastic.
              >Military: did you win every battle and dominate the area of operations? Y/N
              >Political: did you solve the underlying socio-political issues causing the insurgency? Y/N

              >did we kill a lot of asiatics? (yes)
              >did we lose the fricking war anyway by not defeating the insurgency? (yes)
              >SEEEEEEE THEY"RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
              Goddamn anon. Suck Westmoreland's dick some more lol

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >>did we kill a lot of asiatics? (yes)
                >>did we lose the fricking war anyway by not defeating the insurgency? (yes)
                Correct. The military operation was a success the political operation was a failure.

                This level of idiocy on your behalf suggests some sort of alterior motivation as no one could possibly be this idiotic.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >Win as many set piece battles as you want, you didn't move the front, because the front is all around you. The NVA and the Viet Cong represent the same enemy in a different disciplines. Like branches of their military. You can beat the NVA up and down the country. And they did
                You're literally agreeing verbatim with their premise you fricking autist.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >>did we kill a lot of asiatics? (yes)
                >>did we lose the fricking war anyway by not defeating the insurgency? (yes)
                Correct. The military operation was a success the political operation was a failure.

                This level of idiocy on your behalf suggests some sort of alterior motivation as no one could possibly be this idiotic.

                I'm saying that factually those two premises are correct but the seperation of the two is wrong. Clausewitz even said that war and politics are the same thing. They're linked inseperably. Strategically the military lost just as much as they won tactically. That doesn't divest blame from the military to the politicians at all. Trying to do so is horseshit Pentagon copium.

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >But Clausewitz
                >But Clausewitz
                No one is saying the war was won you fricking moron. They are saying that despite losing the war due to political failings the military aspect was a success in that the military was able to win their battles and dominate the battle space. This being in relation to the application of military equipment and technilogy. Which YOU FRICKING AGREED WITH.

            • 2 years ago
              Anonymous

              http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

              • 2 years ago
                Anonymous

                >hippie homosexual misinterprets shit and lies about history
                i'm gonna need a better source than that

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't bomb every road and field in the country and drive the entire population out with starvation, it really isn't total war. Unironically.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Conventional weapons don't win political victories
        Shocking.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah that didnt work in vietnam
        the modern technology absolutely worked, the politics didn't

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Even the ancient stinger has put in great work. A beautiful end to a long and storied career

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >This post is advertising or begging
    Daily reminder to bet on your national industry

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's not that they're overperforming, it's that Russian convoys are underperforming. They are specifically being used against soft convoys who don't post actual lookouts and infantry support to suppress the operators before they got a chance to set up and use them.
    I think that's changing now, but it takes a lot of work to change sloppy behavior, they could keep locating and hitting convoys while they're unaware and never run out.

    tldr never make fun of truckers again, their jobs are a lot harder than they look

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >They are specifically being used against soft convoys who don't post actual lookouts
      no russian convoys are doing their job due to terrible training and equipment. besides, we've already seen dozens of videos of tanks and ifvs eating javelins

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Americans are very generous, Putin thanks you all (a Christian nation indeed!)

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Why Russia is capturing those spent tubes?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What does "nato weapons" even mean?
      If they are not operated by a troop under nato command, they can not be nato weapons.
      Damned vatniki and their newspeak. You keep on spouting these phrases that are just plain wrong.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        nato has standards for its weapons

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >nato weapons vs warsaw pact weapons
        >newspeak
        The frick is wrong with you dude

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Bro NATO uses standardized calibers/weapon systems so all NATO nations can share weapons and ammo.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Are Japan, Mexico or South Korea in NATO, now? They also use weapons in NATO calibers.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They really treat the NATO stuff like alien tech wunderwaffes its hilarious

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >They really treat the NATO stuff like alien tech wunderwaffes its hilarious
        Because they really are compared to their stuff.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      oh no they captured pallets
      did we got too wienery natosisters?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        they don't know what they are, no need to worry

        they'll just use them as firewood

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Send more tanks, it's good deal

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao, most of the war is fought with soviet era Russian equipment, western equipment gets all the attention because Ukrops hope to get even more weapons if they advertise them, even absolutly useless pieces of trash like the switchblades.
    The high quality low number western equipment has truly shown its supremacy by defeating high number soviet Russian equipment that is why the Oinkrainians have stopped the Russian advance and succesfully counter-attacked..... Oh wait,kek.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Our military industrial complex is #1!

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      do it makes up for short cutted penis?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine not siding with the israelites. They’re chosen by GOD. You think they’re gonna lose? Hah read a book.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Lol why do you think about our penises so much? I don't think about yours at all.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine for a moment that you make an ArmA scenario where the attacking side has only things that were in vanilla ArmA 2 and the defending side has weapons/equipment from vanilla Arma 3

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Spend more money than the third world has combined on developing weapons specifically to kill thirides
    >The weapons are good at killing thirdies
    Gee, anon

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    You are watching US media, while I'm sure the gear is good always keep in mind propaganda is always useful.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Switchblades flopped, while WarMates are getting a public funding campaign in Ukraine to buy them.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Switchblades are alright. The javelins and HIMARS are the 2 really impressive systems

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Javelin is so fricking kino. Being able to pop armor from range with a dismounted weapon that can be carried on patrol is huge. It really is no wonder why the javelin is held in such high regard amongst Ukrainian regulars

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        There was that one article that said SOME units preferred civilian drones over switchblade but other Ukie operators have had a lot of success with them.
        It’s preference, not failure.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Is it possible we're just not seeing switchblade footage because they're only going to elite units who don't film engagements and/or the US forbids filming of their employment?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point of having two redundant sensors on Javlin? Why can't be there just one - on the missile?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because having the missile be the primary sensor means that it has to be exposed while scouting. Having an optic on the CLU allows you to 1. Have a more expensive optic on the CLU 2. Have the CLU double up as independent surveillance equipment 3. Keep the missile safe and protected until it's ready to fire.

      I can't think of any modern ATGMs that use the missile as the optic.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        Also the sensor needs to be cooled, this is done in the missile with a single use nitrogen bottle so once the sensor is activated you only have ~15 minutes that seeker can see for.
        The CLU can be reloaded with extra cooling in the field without expecting a grunt to crack open a missile without killing himself or fricking it.

        There's also the plain boring simple thing that always applies when you're talking about any rocket at all: weight. Grams of optic are grams that aren't fuel or high explosive, end of story. There is every reason to put as little on the missile as possible while still having it do its job so it can go as far/fast/bang as much as possible.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because having the missile be the primary sensor means that it has to be exposed while scouting. Having an optic on the CLU allows you to 1. Have a more expensive optic on the CLU 2. Have the CLU double up as independent surveillance equipment 3. Keep the missile safe and protected until it's ready to fire.

      I can't think of any modern ATGMs that use the missile as the optic.

      Also the sensor needs to be cooled, this is done in the missile with a single use nitrogen bottle so once the sensor is activated you only have ~15 minutes that seeker can see for.
      The CLU can be reloaded with extra cooling in the field without expecting a grunt to crack open a missile without killing himself or fricking it.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because Russians STILL DO SHIT LIKE THIS 4 MONTHS INTO THE WAR:

    https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1541349565949005824

    > sending tank columns with absolutely no intel/recon/IFVs/infantry ANYTHING

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What has me fricked here is the other vehicles see the lead hit a mine and instead of getting back on the road where it's hard to hide mines they all keep pushing up the field.
      Am I moronic?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      those are donations

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >technology developed for a war with the Russians excels at a war with the Russians

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    America is unironically 100 years ahead of Russia and China, and 50 years ahead of the UK/Germany in military tech. Look at this beauty, it's ancient tech and the cucniks/chinks still have no counter or equivalent to it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Subsonic death trap piece of shit that maneuvers like waterlogged plywood.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        sour grapes, lol

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, burger here. This plane is trash. The ancient starfighter would mog this turd.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          They had to limit how the plane maneuvers to keep pilots from killing themselves. Who makes a spy plane incapable of mach speeds?

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Devine enemy lines.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    bc it was designed to fight russian equipment during the multi-decade cold war of the previous century and its finally being used to that end

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Is it? I assume that its successes are simply reported more to encourage Americans to send more (so that the Ukrainians will need their toes as well as their fingers to count them lmao) and to make Ukrainians think that they have a technological advantage. And obviously, nobody except Russia is going to report on its failures.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >t.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous
  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    More, they even dedicated a classic Euro dance pop song to the Javelin.

    >Javelin to the maximum
    >The orcs will not feel very well.
    >I left on a tractor
    >Came back with a tank.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The night is moon, starry, clear!
        Apparently, though orcs collect
        Come out, Russian orc, ours tired
        Though on a minute in the grove

        Javelin on the maximum
        Orkam will be so much
        He left on the tractor
        Returned with tanks

        Where did you take not ask
        I won't turn it
        Better take out in the field
        I will give the Armed Forces
        The orka body will lie in the soil
        The Armed Forces will help

        The Armed Forces will help

        Gives on the pedal of the Bandorovtomobi
        BITCH
        Rides on the road and maybe on the water

        Neptune woke up
        And the trident gave the brazen
        He drove the ship
        Glory to Ukraine

        The orka body will lie in the soil
        The Armed Forces will help

        The Armed Forces will help

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >marry qt ukie blonde that worships my rich white peen
    >mind-blowingly depraved sex
    >name all kids after NATO weapons in reverse chronological order
    >run out of names, start having to name kids after WW2 Naval vessels

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        russian women will give you vatBlack person sons tho. Its worse then racemixing.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >name all kids after NATO weapons
      >run out of names
      bruh, you're not a fricking amoeba

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