What do Europeans think of our SCUDs, specifically , R-11 and R-17?

outdated and easily interceptable, hence Iskander

File: 1489216092493.png (84KB, 4000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 4000x2000px

Who are they pointed at?

File: 1492374485363.png (669KB, 2114x1270px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 2114x1270px

>>76864600
To whoever don't celebrate Easter, my friend

>>76864600
servomotor is broken, so probably... malawi.. i guess.

Yeah, fuck Malawi, US puppets.

>>76864698
Well.... They are apart of the Commonwealth so you're not entirely wrong

>>76864545
Scuds are pretty outdated and can (and will) be tanen down by modern SAM systems.

The Iskander system however is a bit more tricky

>>76864572
>and easily interceptable
>tactical warhead
>easily interceptable

>>76864600
Go ask Poland.

>>76864783
Implying europe has alot modern SAM systems outside US military bases

>>76864783
>The Iskander system however is a bit more tricky

If the US military hasn't discussed and developed solutions for this, then my tax money is going to waste.

>>76864829
What the fuck are you trying to get at?
Of course they do, almost all NATO/EU countries have modern military tech. The U.S. forces them too.

>>76864783
>Scuds are pretty outdated

That shit is from the 1960s. Calling it "pretty outdated" is not a strong enough euphemism.

>>76864600
your post number

>>76864892
>almost all NATO/EU countries have modern military tech.
by 1992 standarts

File: 1491753288052.png (152KB, 359x414px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 359x414px

>>76864829
>modern SAM systems
Too bad that only we have them.

>>76864829
>I dont know about the SAMP-T system

>>76865430
This is what vatniks actually belive

File: Scud_launcher.jpg (482KB, 824x534px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 824x534px

bretty nice

>>76864975
I dont think you are the ones to bitch about that when 80% of your tank fleet is T-72s and T-80s, and when your whole fleet is from the 80's

Not to mention small arms...

>>76865991
Also, a large portion of their shit is just rusting at depots

>>76865954
San Andreas Multi Player?
>>76865991
T-80 would btfo leo2a4 which is 80% of european tank fleet

>>76865430
Russian SAMs are modern by 1988 standards.

>>76866159
>coming form a USpoor
Your SAMs are not even S75 tier

>>76866071
>T-80 would btfo leo2a4 which is 80% of european tank fleet
Not by any strech of the imagination, but the T-80U is perhaps on par. Most european nations worth a shit runs 2A5s or 2A6 tho.

The main problem is the short rods of the 2-pice ammunition used in the 2A46 gun.

Also, the T-80 fleet is probably beeing phased out faster than the T-72 as the production plant and most spare parts was/is made in Ukraine

>>76866310
>Russia
>Calling anyone else poor

Come back when your economy is larger than Italys and when it isnt based on oil exports like a 3rd worlders

>>76866369
you are dumb

All we'd have to do is press a couple of buttons to turn Russia into glowing green waste. Lyl.

>>76866445
At least Im not poor

>>76866488
>>76866447
please stop humiliating us

>>76866488
Me neither
>>76866447
same lul

File: 14948729375453.webm (370KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 960x720px

look at this guys, it's like a poetry
poetry of war

>>76866803
>Me neither

By our standards, yes you probably are, unless you are quite a bit above the avrage russian

>>76864783
America still seems to be worried about what North Korea are up to, and they're using reverse engineered Scud missiles for their shit.

>>76867684
Thats mainly because nobody knows how advanced they actually are, and because its much more likely they would use a nuclear-equipped weapon than anyone else

>>76864545
I have no idea about military tech, but I heard Russians have the best anti air missiles in the world

File: 14971272463610.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>76867782
and nuclear missels and jets and tanks and so on

>>76867782
All depends on what factors you count.

>Range?
Yeah, the 40N6 missile of the S-400 system is unbeaten
>Radars, sensors and networking?
They have some catching up to do, but that is also a doctrinal issue.

The problem at the extreme ranges is the curvature of the earth, after all 400 km is 1/10 of the distance around the planet. So unless your target is at a very high altitude you cant track or intercept it anyway.

>>76867867
>nuclear missiles
Yeah, Ill give you that one, but that is again doctrinal, as you focus on offensive nuclear capabilities, and not on protection against ICBMs.
>Jets
For airshows, yeah. But not for combat, the US beats everyone there fair and square

>>76867867
Forgot tanks.

Not in any way, hope or shape. The T-14 is meme-tier and only produced in small numbers. The bulk of your forces is still uppgraded T-72s.

>>76867867
Ivan please.

Anyway the real advantage modern militaries have is their space and communications tech.
If you don't have satellites above, you're basically a medieval calvary unit vs a modern tank. All you can do is wage an endless guerilla war of attrition after your actual military has been wiped out.
You can give a country like Iran your latest and greatest gear and we'll destroy it all within a few weeks because of this.

>>76868208
>All you can do is wage an endless guerilla war

Seems to work fine against you in Vietnam and Afghanistan

>>76868208
>can easily shot down sattelites
>medieval calvary unit
>>76868080
Upgraded T72s can easily destroy any western counterparts. West always lagged behind pact in tank tech.

File: Britain protects Estonia35.jpg (122KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x630px

>>76867867
Just stay away from Estonia m8, we've sent our tank units to keep them safe. At least the Challenger II has seen years of action and has been tested extensively, albeit against older tanks tbqf.

>>76868327
>Upgraded T72s can easily destroy any western counterparts.
Hahahahahaha

Those short rods cant even penetrate a 2A4 you vodkaautist.

West lagged behind in the 60's and 70's but you are still stuck using what you invented in the 70's while the west developed newer far more capable tanks in the mid 80's

>>76868334
The T-72 has also seen plenty of combat. None of them ever saw combat twice tho

>>76864572
Absolutely expert opinion lad. Jesus christ why cant people shut the fuck up when they clearly dont know jack shit.

>>76868208
>Anyway the real advantage modern militaries have is their space and communications tech.
That might work against illiterate farmers in the desert, but against an industrialized country that has ways of destroying and interfering with satellites like Russia I'm much more skeptical how long those systems will last.

>>76868929
But the is pretty much correct tho.

File: DECyyTXXkAEzPSE.jpg (95KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x683px

>>76868327
>UK trains over 5000 Ukrainian troop

Your days are numbered.

>>76865981
>Europeans

>>76867512
That's BrahMos right?footage from Kalam missile testing island.

>>76868334
*destroys your shittank
>>76868857
>>>/k/
there are so many brainless amerishills you will like this board

File: 5 Rifles Battlegroup prepares to head out by vehicle on Exercise Saber Strike in Estonia.jpg (405KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 2048x1365px

>>76869660
Soon.

File: oqkjgn.jpg (70KB, 800x419px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x419px

>>76869754
During the attack Trooper Sean Chance, a 20-year-old serving with the Queen's Royal Hussars, lost half of his left foot; two other crew members were injured.

The unit's commander described the moment the tank was hit by the missile in a letter he wrote to the wounded soldier in March. The officer wrote: "I recall seeing it [the RPG-29 being fired] and thinking, 'Oh Christ, that's bad.'

>>76869806
>The tank, which had already been hit by 10-15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken.[citation needed] Its driver, Trooper Sean Chance, lost part of his foot in the blast; two more of the crew were slightly injured. Chance was able to reverse the vehicle 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the regimental aid post despite his injuries.
>Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with a Dorchester block and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the 'Streetfighter' upgrade as a direct response to this incident.

Good brave lads. Lessons have been learnt it seems.

>>76869806
Do they have modern warheads for the old RPG-7 launcher?

>>76864545
>What do Europeans think of our SCUDs, specifically , R-11 and R-17?- 55 posts and 10 image replies shown.

I loved them in Operation Flashpoint

>>76864660
phew! that's a relief

File: PG-7VR.jpg (92KB, 1024x618px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x618px

>>76869926
1988 tandem and thermobarics
1999 HE

>>76866071
Can T-80 take on a couple of chechen mujahideen though?

>>76869660
Its not shilling if it is correct.

The US spends ten times as much as you on its military, and guess what, it is better. Weird isnt it?

>>76870693
>it is better
bigger=/=better silly

>>76870758
They are better than you in allmost all respects.

A US carrier can carry more than twice as many planes as your scrapheap and they have 11 of them.

They have over 200 operational stelth fighters, you have none.

They have a navy that wasnt fielded in the 80's and an army that stomped the shit out of every nation with T-72's they have ever met.

>>76871203
There's no military on earth that comes close to our capabilities.

>>76871203
Any country with AShMs can easily destroy carriers.

>>76871486
>>76871203
true.
and that russian poster is probably a kremlinshill or just baiting

>>76871203
>They have a navy that wasnt fielded in the 80's and an army that stomped the shit out of every nation with T-72's they have ever met.

In all fairness, we've never faced the domestic Soviet T-72 on the battlefield, just export versions operated by sand niggers. However, even the domestic model would be horribly outdated by modern standards.

Didn't know /int/ was full of military experts

>>76871671
int is full of all kinds of experts

>>76871512
Do you actually belive this?

That EW, SAMs, CIWS and fighter jets doesnt exist?

Anything able to launch Ashms will be Btfo by the carriers air wings long before its within range.

>>76871659
Fair enough, but if it was any good I would have assumed that even the export models at least would have been able to knock out one of yours.

I mean how big can the leap be between the export model and a Russian one?

>>76871765
Quite a bit actually. Soviet tanks were designed to operate on the Eurasian plain, they were poorly suited to the climate of the Middle East, maintenance of them was lousy, and Arabs in general suck at regular war, they can only do insurgencies.

The domestic model had some extra features that the export T-72 lacked although I'm not completely clear on the details.

>>76871711
Expert here. Can confirm

Those are big missiles.

>>76873174
4 u

File: 19-03-2012-Parade-rehearsal_-_Topol-M.jpg (212KB, 1280x819px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1280x819px

>>76864545
these things are cooler

File: 70d01eadd6ae6a61ef25fd6580524b01.jpg (267KB, 1024x647px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1024x647px

>>76864545

sometimes I wonder if that even works or is it there completely hollow and rusting like everything made in ex-urss golden days.

do you guys remember when the russians were making the next big thing in tank designs and the damn thing broke during the Russian victory day parade.

https://youtu.be/o89BYp95Qiw