Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mighty_Zuk

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

219 profile views
  1. Yes, that's called retarded. Back in the day, the Soviet Army explained the buy of T-72 and T-80 simultaneously without properly continuing the T-64 development, and the continued production of both simultaneously with the T-90 even today with the same explanation from the Russian Federation, that it has to make a lot of military hardware that is parallel in function and capabilities but has 0 logistical compatibility with one another, because they have to please several different corporations. It's amazing how Russia "seized the means of production" and now there are barely any non-
  2. The answer is partially an organizational one, and partially a technological one. As BMS becomes more advanced, not only our fires become more dispersed but so is our command, and the resilience of the force in the event of a decapitation. Brigade leadership is dead? Battalion commanders become more independent and the division command takes control. And if you think division command's going to be threatened then give it the appropriate air defenses that should deal with ballistic missiles and long range rockets. Use various levels of relays and a common command system acro
  3. We always make shit explode more fabulously. This one doesn't scratch me any different.
  4. Wasn't it around $150 billion? With that amount of money you can boost your military efforts tremendously, especially considering Iran's military structure and its strategy (zero reliance on expensive platforms, a lot of very light infantry bolstered by very rough strategic capabilities like drones and ballistic missiles, which is a cheap and effective mix). For domestic purposes though? That's maybe a third of their annual GDP. They're not going to go very far with it when investing in healthcare, education, or transport, especially when they don't give a flying fuck about their peo
  5. The article does contradict itself. 40 seconds only to accelerate to hypersonic speed, doesn't sound like "being able to destroy any target in a matter of seconds". Especially when you read they're banking on an acceleration+ramjet combo. If they're using a ramjet, it's probably because it's supposed to fly and sustain a high speed for a protracted period of time. For a truly high speed and short flight, a better fitting solution per the author's description would be a multi stage rocket. My point is the author's a little easily baited. Okay so that's a hypersonic weapo
  6. Hence Israeli, Saudi, and Emirati opposition to the JCPOA - it resulted in a massive cash flow to Iran which proportionately reinforced and accelerated Iranian military campaigns across the region.
  7. I agree. It was a show of strength, and shows of strength must be reinforced if needed. The strong pushback at home against the assassination only did a lot of disservice to the US and its regional efforts.
  8. True, but the source is an Israeli website, and in Israel we're using metric tons.
  9. Yes. They did just that and now American forces are no more in Iraq. Definitely not a single soldier, let alone base. The Al Asad airbase, without a doubt, no longer exists.
  10. Hanwha's Redbacks are going to Israel for integration of the turret and its subsystems. Elbit seems to market the Redback now, showing a test firing of Rafael's Spike LR2 5th gen missiles from Elbit's MT30 turret, dubbed T2000 in Australia.
  11. Don't feed the trolls, Bojan. Ignore them.
  12. You have no idea what 1st world countries can and cannot afford. You asked about Israel? Well here's your answer. If the IDF had bought Eitan IFVs for the sole reason of lower costs, that'd be a fucking joy! Better yet, it already did, citing operation costs of an order of magnitude lower than the 65 ton Namers. Israel's expenditure on defense is 4.3% of its GDP, or roughly 5% if accounting for American assistance. Either way that's more than either the US or Russia spend relative to GDP, according to 2019 statistics. If we kept buying Namers, we would still have only arou
  13. True, it being evacuated makes it less immoral, but in the case where a hospital, or any other public building/infrastructure is used as a military asset of any kind, it becomes a legitimate target. Russia would not be under investigation, but if they were I assume they'd provide proof it was used for military purposes. They don't have the same moral standards we have in the west, but they're not monsters, and I'm confident they would not attack a hospital for shits and giggles, especially when it requires very expensive missiles and scarcely available drones.
  14. If you're trying to say you're not a moron, that's not the way to do it.
  15. If both are built to the same modern digital standards, then the disparity in survivability should be negligible or very close to that. Both should have more than sufficient means to defeat one another, and to protect against the other. But since most buyers of wheeled frontline combat vehicles do it from considerations of costs, then it should be oriented as: Would enemy tracked combat vehicles be better faced by wheeled combat vehicles, or nothing? Most would answer wheeled are better than nothing.
  • Create New...