Thread 64132128

The reason Americans aerial power works so well its that they have 6k state of the art planes, logistics and training to use them effectively.
If you had any other country fight the way america does they become broke in a year.
If they expended the same number they spend on planes in artillery they d be trashing a "superpower" like russia pre ukraine even without planes.
Wed probably have by now accurate fire on the move artillery if they had put such an emphasis on that.
And also Tube artillery that can reach up to 100km away and keep on firing for days.

yeah

>>64132128 (OP)
it's hilarious how much airpower pisses thirdies off, and how hard they try to force the
"artillery is king now" narrative.
no, even a smaller western-style airforce will buckbreak an artillery army, cope and seethe, nigger.

Well, yeah. Its kind of a truism, the power gap between americhads and the rest of the world is such that were basically in a class of our own.

>>64132128 (OP)
Those capabilities already exist. Sorry second rate regional powers can't build them.

>>64132128 (OP)
Literally could not be a better example than when Thailand curbstomped Cambodia last month with F-16s and Gripens because they only had artillery and a couple HQ-12 SAMs. Thailand lost only 18 men while killing 3000 Khmers.

>>64132268
the funnier thing is that western artillery mogs thirdie artillery just as much, they just don't realize that because it can't be quantified in a wikipedia paper number like some aircraft tech can.

accurate, rapidly responsive artillery that is well enough supplied to be able to be called by regular infantrymen is a force multiplier second only to complete air dominance.

>>64132128 (OP)
Artillery and ground-based systems can't do a lot of the shit that air power can dumbass.
Even just considering the strike role, a lighter attack aircraft or fighter like the F-16 has like 10-20x the combat range without aerial refueling than the max range of howitzers in common use even with rocket assisted or base bleed projectiles, and the maximum weight of an air-launched munition is far greater than either gun or rocket artillery. Artillery is also vulnerable to things aircraft aren't, simply by virtue of operating near the front on the ground rather than flying out of faraway bases and at high altitude.
>If they expended the same number they spend on planes in artillery they d be trashing a "superpower" like russia pre ukraine even without planes.
The US would buckbreak Russia several times harder with its current aircraft inventory than in your hypothetical. Russia has no strategy, weapon system, or other asset in their arsenal that can stop a strike from a B-2.

>>64132386
>the funnier thing is that western artillery mogs thirdie artillery just as much, they just don't realize that because it can't be quantified in a wikipedia paper number like some aircraft tech can.
HIMARS/GMLRS/ATACMS showed the world how badly Western arty already outclasses turdoid shit. The only modern Western artillery system that is legitimately bad/outdated is the M109, and even then it still mogs Russian artillery with its accuracy and ammunition types.

>>64132386
one of the key factors for russian Total Artillery Death is ukraine's access to these highly mobile, fast-firing, accurate and longer range SPG's, so yeah, western counterbattery is OP as well.

>>64132301
yep, but thirdie cope has to be that ONLY the US can do that and their thirdie artillery can totally still win against smaller competent airforces