this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
119 points (93.4% liked)

GenZedong

4242 readers
70 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lemmy thread about it is hilarious, you can observe as some libs are "Ukraine is winning" and "F16 are gonna change everything" but most of them already taken slow backstep from that position (took them barely 1,5 year!). You can already smell the post Iraq position shuffle in the air.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They'll still find a way to cope. Just like Iraq (Saddam was ebil dictatoor!), Vietnam (nuh-uh didn't lose!), fuckin Finnish War (muh hwyte deaff!), and many many more

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Ya know, I only just noticed that they've used a NATO reporting name for the "ghost", but actual Soviet designations for the "kills"

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Here is Putler hacking fake American elections

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How many wonderwaffles does it take for a lib to realize that one weapons system very rarely alters the course of an entire conflict?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

No no, you see, having your weapon systems cost 5 times as much money as the opposing side's is a good thing actually. Clearly it means it's 150 times more effective, according to this marketing presentation I found from the for-profit corporation that makes it and then sells it to the military and this press release from the general whose entire career is intrinsically tied to it, both of whom couldn't possibly be biased in any way!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

No idea, it's at least 5th in this war alone and they aren't stopping.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are F16’s even good? I ask as someone that knows Jack shit about weapons.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They seems average. They do have at least one significant flaw, that large air intake apparently suck up things from runway during take off, which is why the plane need clean airstrip and it could be hard to get when Russians can just strike wherever they want with missiles. And of course the enemy air superiority also make them abot as useful as every other plane, that is not very much after getting bombed while on land.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

plus, another thing to put on the table is how well it operates with the other hardware, the country's tactics and war discipline.

all modern armies work with the combined arms concept, meaning the air force for example it is not a separated entity, it needs the ground forces and the ground need them and so on, not as simples as 1 + 1 = 2.

this is one of the major flaws in ukrainian army, they received a bunch of hardware from different countries and different times, nato and warsaw, nothing combines with each other

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

I was going to say that F-16s have been steadily upgraded since then but then realized that they'll probably be given the oldest, shittiest, machines that could charitably fit a loose definition of "airworthy".

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously, it's an earlier version of the superior M16 because F is before M in the alphabet.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a common misconception, actually the F in F16 stands for Flight, denoting it is an aircraft or other craft capable of sustained flight, and the M in M16 stands for Meapon.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

actually the F in F16 stands for Flight

This does not compute, explain F-35.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Flight 35, it seems pretty obvious to me

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Shouldn't it be c35 for crash?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

You can see all the money you spent acquiring one of these fly away when they crash, so it technically counts

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "-16" denotes that they can use the same clips.

That's right, gun nerds. Clips.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I think every part of me clenched when I read that... bravo comrade, bravo.