>>520816186
>I've generally come to the conclusion that NAFO talking points are all in that vein.
It's one of the third-grader fallacies I've mentioned earlier, strawman. They look for a talking point to ridicule (a post in a botted telegram channel with 15 subscribers, a retard's reply in another thread, opponent's media quoting their own talking points etc) or, failing that, invent it themselves, then tear into it.
To me what stands out in that incident is that they are always so focused on who claimed what, when a real connoisseur would've been discussing what went wrong, how it could've been prevented, what missiles were used and whether the same tactic can be applied to other vessels and fleets — with Russian Black sea fleet mostly in hiding somewhere near Novorossiysk, afaik, the most interesting scenario would be US vs Venezuela. Those guys have nothing worth mentioning in terms of AShMs but, like, suppose they had, what kind of assets would be necessary to counter those reliably? What would the recovery procedures look like? Etc.
But no, to them what's most interesting is that he said she said the ship has made it to port.
They also did the same thing when another ship was claimed to be hit (Grigorovich? Makarov?) and sunk, except she later reappeared in her berth. I still see her marked as damaged or sunk on some of the pics they spam.
> French bataille conduite ideas from the end of the first world war.
Apologies. I would've partook in it despite not being French but don't have much to say on the matter anyway. There are some parallels to be drawn here, but they are all too obvious to the both of us I'm certain.
>nobody seems to have any superweapons up their sleeve.
The closest thing we've seen is the Brits unleashing their starlinked naval drones. This concept was possibly being saved for the war with China. Now they are aware of the threat and will adjust accordingly.
Thank you for the chat. Got to reminisce a bit. Have a good night.