this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
609 points (94.1% liked)

World News

32372 readers
597 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Either way they work the same.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Judging by the number of western vehicles lost to mines in the last few weeks alone they do not perform the same fighting a peer military with access to large amounts of modern equipment vs ill equipped militias fighting an insurgency

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

You expect those vehicles will not be damaged by mines huh.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but they haven't faced massive minefields, helicopter gunships, artillery, electronic countermeasures, airstrikes, etc when occupying Iraq or Afghanistan. Fighting guerrillas and fighting a peer army are two entirely different beasts, and we see the proof in more western tanks being lost in 2 months than USA lost in 2 decades in Iraq or Afghanistan

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, America keeps losing wars to those guerilla fighters let alone an army with actual military doctorine

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago

A butter knife works the same when cutting butter or steel. It still isn't useful for cutting steel. This is what they're trying to communicate.

A reaper drone works the same when blowing up random weddings or when flying in airspace with a networked AA system of S300s, S400s, and S500s

Which is to say we know the underlying physics continues to operate the same but the context changes how useful the equipment is, because a butterknife is made for butter and a Reaper is made for blowing up weddings without an air defense network nearby.

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

so, not at all, considering they even lost in Afghanistan

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

There you go. Time to give Ukraine some AC 130 gun ships. Good suggestion.

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

What, are there Russian hospitals in need of bombing? C130 can't operate if there is air defense

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just like Afghanistan. Always bragging until Puff shows up.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

The degree to which you identify with the US war machine is really sad.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

They had gunships in Afghanistan and US still lost, not sure I see your point here. Not to mention the Taliban didn't have close to the anti-aircraft capabilities that the Russian military has. AC-130s work fine for bombing defenseless hospitals, but against a force with radar, electronic countermeasures, anti-aircraft missiles, fighter jets, and all the other tools that a modern military has access to? I think the gunships would not be nearly as effective as you think

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

Russia has the best air defense in the world. C-130 is a big slow moving target. Even in Afghanistan they operated only at night.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I assume you believe China has the best?

Regardless C-130 gunships are a hilariously bad idea. This isn't Call of Duty son.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I wouldn't know who has the best, but I know if you have to say it, it's probably not true.

130s are a bad idea, but meant to rattle chains.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I guess if I was manning a SAM I would be a little rattled the first time it started raining fuselage parts

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or course it can't be the best, because they aren't the USA

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

That must be why America keeps losing to farmers on the opposite side of the world.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Not really, no.