Pic related is a comparison of both teams' firepower using this tool https://www.globalfirepower.com/coalitions.php
Why did the blue team build so many planes and so few rockets?
WW3, which side wins?
Pic related is a comparison of both teams' firepower using this tool https://www.globalfirepower.com/coalitions.php
Why did the blue team build so many planes and so few rockets?
yeah
planes are far better
The generations to come
All that matters is air power.
Man this comparison sure is sound and reasonable. This is like Russian war planning levels of competency.
>belarus
bruh
>syria
b r u h
>venezuela
BRUH
you are just straight up moronic
just you wait until they call upon the eritrea, africa reinforcements then youll be sorry
But no word about almost entire EU, Australia, Canada, Israel and lots of others
Blue overpowers even without the rest of NATO, why is the US so overpowered?
Because Eurogays can't pull their own weight
Put all their development points in military instead of healthcare
This...is a disturbingly accurate depiction of my country.
Yeah basically my reaction to this war.
>wait .3% my tax dollars are actually going to be used on something productive with tangible results for once.
About fricking time.
Would of gone to something moronic if not this, even if Ukraine sold like 50% of it at the end of the war like the moronic vatnik claim would be better than the normal 100%
I literally have zero expectations of anything good from our politicians anyway.
no one, did you see the updated box score from ww2? we all lost
>Why did the blue team build so many planes and so few rockets?
American doctrine is centered around air superiority. They have holidays for air superiority. They killed hundreds of thousands of white men to build more planes. They listen to Danger Zone music. They elect a fighter jock as their president. They dress and act like fighter pilots. They draw the entirety of their modern culture from air superiority. They post sassy gifs about air superiority. They watch live footage of bombing Black folk. Their biggest event of the year involves throwing parties in honor of airmen bombing Arabs. They use Air Force slang like "bruh" and "thot". When you say "Martin Luther" they're not thinking of the father of protestantism. They're thinking of the fighter pilot. Their airfields are completely overrun with air superiority fighters.
wtf i love america now
>Coalition 1 is first world countries with strong militaries and Turkey, which is one of the strongest third world countries
>Coalition 2 is China and a bunch of third world shitholes that won’t be able to carry their weight in a fight
Feels good having no peer enemies, NATObros
>red team
Poor China will have to carry the entire effort themselves.
Because - it's impossible to get an artillery shell to fly as far as a plane can go.
Comparing naval power in terms of raw vessels is dumb. Coalition 1 has far more of what really matters, aircraft carriers. The USA has a dozen supercarriers, France has one, the UK has two, Japan kinda has two - meanwhile Coalition 2 has two and a half total, both from China.
The other main issue is that "Coalition 2" is not a coalition. None of these countries are willing to fight for one another. Russia and Syria, maybe. Belarus won't even help in "spetsoperation", they certainly won't do a thing in a bigger conflict. The force projection of most of these countries is very poor compared to blue. Even if they were to suddenly start fighting together, their integration would be terrible compared to blue.
It's basically WW2 Axis versus Allies all over again.
>Russia and Syria, maybe
Given how none of the promised 20K Syrian volunteers materialised we can deduce Syria is in a similar boat to Belarus. They're fine with help from Russia but won't lift a finger in return.
What you really want to go by is Defense Spending and GDP. Defence budget/manpower gives you a rough estimate on quality while GDP shows what kind of resources they can bring to the table. Looking at the raw numbers is misleading as having 30k tanks is meaningless if they're all T-34s.
I suspect if you take out NK, the amount of artillery drops substantially. Which might be realistic because sitting out of a war, unless they're attacked first, benefits Kim heavily. Allowing him to retain power and go to the UN like "I'm a good boy, pls gib food and I will continue to stay out of the fight."
I love how /k/ has no degenerated into literal morons comparing irrelevant numbers on spreadsheets
>/k/ has no degenerated into literal morons comparing irrelevant numbers
Are we really going to pretend that's anything new here?
>tool
>globalfirepower
Correct, but not in the way you think
Also, frick off tourist
With that advantage in artillery coalition 2 wins easily
whichever side Vietnam goes with
China isn't on russian side.
it is in op's scenario, autist.
>https://www.globalfirepower.com
Lmao at the supposed ruskie numbers
what matters most is geography and logistics. it's being able to effectively move your forces around the world. how does Venezuela and Syria help their allies?
I’ll take air power and guided rocket artillery every day of the week over men, tanks and artillery.
Ones with ICBM spam and missile spam wins
I feel like air power should be higher, US takes like three of the top five spots for aircraft, I think first and second are air force then nacy, then army aviation in third place.