Search results

You think i don't know this? It still lets us get the minimum it can do. I never said our missions are the best at destroying them. Just what the plan is. I also need to read up on thay Why do you think the US Army has so many exercises, most force com units are going into the field on a every...

Ehh, Because China and Russia export a lot of their stuff to nK and Iran, and countries that are not at best terms, and even some of our allies, we know more about their stuff then they do ours.

Oh I know what they can do to GPS guided munitions. Which is why we have dumb munitions and the like. You underestimate what the US Military (Army and AF as that is where my work experience is) are actually capable of in a force on force war. We know exactly what are enemies are capable of, and...

SAMs have to be turned on, and cant stay on 24/7. Generaly you over lap them coverage wise so when one is down another is on. Having them on also provides a way for the enemy to get a location on said System. SPAAGs on the other hand, are only good if the EW radars detect the enemy and are able...

They were mainly for low flying slower aircraft and rotary wing helicopter. The B1 and B2 were made specifically to fly low and fast or high and fast to avoid getting hit and drop thierbload, be it nuclear or conventional. I'm going off both a mixture of tje 80s and what I know now having to...

Plenty of Czech made tanks. the Pz 35 and Pz 32. Also multiple tanks had autoloaders, they were just such small caliber it would not help much. It was probably never shown to be sucessful.

The thing is, US for instance was also more then willing to use long range ballistic missles, as well as the reason for the B2 and B1. Fast low flying aircraft to deliver a large payload before they can get radar lock. SAMs are only good if they are able to lock on in time to also track the...

That also only works if the enemy doesn't have air superiority

There are multiple sources I have read that make it more even, also multiple WEPs that I have read that also show it being more even as well, and go into discussing the cons of said weapons either. Both groups focused on different doctrines. The US went for a heavy reliance on Air superiority...

They hate me a lot on SB russian military arms thread. Because I question RUSSIAN STRONK. They were not as effective, but still effective. We further increased our capabilities as we always are. NATO would have still won without nukes. The equipment was just that much better. With the exception...

The US has the most tested tech outside of USSR, and even then it is only against thier own vehicles. Perhaps the west knows what works best against the east and the east only thinks it knows. America and Britan took designs from each other and germany to create thier tanks. Yeah. I hate it...

The way war is going to be fought is outdated in the way the Soviets had been planning for. The US has been keeping up with the evolutions