608
submitted 10 months ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dolphin@hexbear.net 38 points 10 months ago

The US has tested its weapons against tribal guerillas, not a peer military.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago

Either way they work the same.

[-] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 38 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

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

[-] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 31 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 37 points 10 months 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.

[-] SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Outdoor_Catgirl@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago

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

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 10 months ago

Just like Afghanistan. Always bragging until Puff shows up.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 26 points 10 months ago

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

[-] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 22 points 10 months 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

[-] Annakah69@hexbear.net 18 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 10 months ago
[-] Annakah69@hexbear.net 17 points 10 months ago

I assume you believe China has the best?

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

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 6 points 10 months ago

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

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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

[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 21 points 10 months ago

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

[-] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 20 points 10 months ago

Not really, no.

[-] oatscoop@midwest.social -1 points 10 months ago

I mean ... calling Russia's military a "peer" is a stretch.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 12 points 10 months ago
[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago

I do find these comments entertaining. It reinforces my belief that US hubris is leading to it's decline. Imagine believing your own lies when its literally your country's existence on the line.

[-] oatscoop@midwest.social -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

... K

We clearly have fundamental, serious issues -- but you'd have to be completely delusional if "actual millitary strength" is something you think the USA lacks and Russia is anyway comparable. They're in a stalemate with with a small country using 40 year old western equipment.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 5 points 10 months ago

The US lost Afghanistan where their enemies had no airsupport and old equipmemt and weren't being supplied by the global hegemon. They also lost Vietnam which they fought a much smaller less well equipped country.

[-] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

So it seems you aren't aware about the $50 billion of military hardware, training, mercenaries, and aid that NATO have provided Ukraine since 2014. Are you being disingeneous for the sake of winning the argument or are you acting in good faith? I need to know whether I should continue to engage or if you're just trolling/playing dumb.

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

World News

31456 readers
1040 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS