Thread 513966941

OK, let's get this straight, Russia has thousands of intercontinental rockets and hydrogen bombs, we have rifles that can't shoot straight after half a mag and tanks that weren't even adequate when Turkey tried to fight middle eastern insurgents with them, but we have nearly the SAME military spending?

Just WTF, sure the sex reassignment surgeries for our transsexual officers are expensive, but something smells fishy here!

It isn't all efficiently allocated. Resources become far more efficient during wartime when things go hot. Right now I'm guessing your "military" is more like a managerial jobs program for retards, like us. Much of that spending are just admins and office people milling about doing fuck all.

>>513966941 (OP)
All that stuff was made with Soviet industry that doesn't exist anymore, back when they were spending more than the US on defense, modern Russia is a complete joke

>>513966941 (OP)
Why do people who shitpost like this pretend that the Ukraine war never happened and we don't have footage of a fucking bradley destroying a T90? or leopards outperforming everything russian?

>>513966941 (OP)
>Russia has thousands of intercontinental rockets and hydrogen bombs
That were all manufactured in the USSR and are rotting in Soviet silos as we speak.
>b-b-but the heckin Topol M and hybersonig missiles
memes

>>513966941 (OP)
Not to blow the russian military but their efficancy compared to other cunts on that list comes from how cheap (in relation to) all things military are in Russia. They have extremely cheap energy and low manufacturing wages = shitload of cost effective shells for a fraction what it would cost to produce the same product in Germany

>>513966945
Also turkey using leopard 2 as stationary artilery is just plain retarded.
Just to add to dismantle OPs claim further.

>>513966941 (OP)
Don't call us we, jeet.

>>513966946
Doesn't even include the fact that Russia pays its soldiers literal peanuts.

>>513966941 (OP)
The Western military industry is profit-oriented, with high levels of corruption and short production chains that are more dependent on imports.
The latest news is the comparison of the price of an American aircraft carrier with a Chinese unmanned vessel. Basically, an aircraft carrier costs more than 4,000 unmanned vessels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70kBG1G0aMg

>>513966949
Implessive

>>513966949
>Nuclear powered floating city is more expensive than small unmanned missile platforms
Thought provoking

>>513966944
because they still believe in the russian military strong meme

>>513966951
The question is whether an aircraft carrier can withstand 4,000 drone ships in a swarm attack.
That's how asymmetric warfare is today.
How many drones do you need to destroy a tank?
How much does a drone cost and how much does a tank cost?
This is not the future of warfare, but the present.

>>513966944
because you are reading a rusnigger bot or möge mir Gott vergeben, einen Russlanddeutscher shit thread

>>513966953
You look a little too simple at this.
You have aircraft carriers to have a mobile striking range. Costly but necessary.
The question here is: what is the attack range of the drone ships and can they bypass the fleet surounding each aircraft carrier?
I don't see any sense for tanks anymore tho.

>>513966955
Exactly, who needs it? The Chinese army operating within its own territory, or the Western army operating beyond its borders?
But this logic also applies to air defense systems vs. missiles today. Air defense systems are much more expensive than a swarm of missiles.
That's why it's called asymmetric warfare.

>>513966953
If the US military is retarded enough to allow a bunch of diesel powered RC boats swarm them then they deserve to lose. In reality carriers won't even be near taiwan theyll be at maximum range east of Taiwan sending bombing sorties to kill chinese forces on the island

>>513966957
Look at the situation that existed and still exists with the Houthis today. There is no chance of the US winning a conventional war against China. The chance would be if the war were in the Gulf of Mexico and not in the South China Sea. The same thing happens, for example, with Russia, which is ridiculously good at operating within its territorial perimeter, but would not be as powerful if operating in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
A war in the South China Sea is ridiculously disproportionate today in terms of economic expenditure, logistics, mobilization capacity, maintenance costs, and especially the cost involved in sustaining the war.

>>513966958
Playing whack a mole with guys shooting rockets off the bed of a Toyota hilux is not the same as fighting off a Chinese invasion of Taiwan that involves real logistical challenges for them, there are valuable targets in that situation

>>513966953
And those 4,000 drone ships will be launched from where? The mainland, ok let's destroy that depo, some kind of "carrier" ship, bomb that with a s2s missile launched from a cruiser

>>513966941 (OP)
All would it take to completely destroy Russia is 4 nukes each on St Petersburg and Moscow.