Kuznetshit

>>32616436
>foxnews
How about no.
>In all, Russian aircraft made just 154 flights off the Kuznetsov in two months
It was there to give pilots combat experience on the first place.

>>32616489
>It was there to give pilots combat experience on the first place.

For what? Russia will never build another aircraft carrier again. They are too poor for that. India and China are the only ones building aircraft carriers.

>>32616489

Great job running 2.5 sorties per day, then.

>>32616952
>Russia will never build another aircraft carrier again
Based on what, your ass?

After the Admiral Kuznetsov breaks down or is retired, I don't think Russia will be getting another carrier. Way too expensive.
Naval Aviation in Russia has dwindled over the past few years. They've gained some MiG-29Ks (Still awaiting production/delivery) which should improve some issues since they're a lot smaller than the Su-33s. But at the same time the Navy has lost control of the strategic bombers to the Air Force.
The Russian Navy will be a purely on/under water force.

>>32617200
F

>>32616436
They may if Trump removes the sanctions.
It may be economically viable at that point.

>>32617180

not him, but basic economic/political analysis. Russia just doesn't have the money or need for an aircraft carrier. Plus, every place they could realistically want to project their power can be reached from bases on Russian land

>>32617180
Russian economy is the size of Spain right now. With no recovery in sight. They aren't even a top 10 economy anymore.

India has x2 the economic size.
China has x5 the economic size.
US has x18 the economy size.

>>32617419
And population going down the shitter.

>>32617429
Russias population is actually increasing, and has been for several years. Its currently doing better than Japan and most of the Eurozone.

File: average american soldier.jpg (95KB, 364x484px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 364x484px

>>32617419
>falling into (((real))) GDP meme
Holy shiet, you amerisharts are so stupid

>>32617634
>w...we're not really as weak as all the numbers say we are ;(

>>32617634
That's a pretty nifty counter argument you got there.

>Americans think that you can't build things while in an economic debt
Nigga what in the living fuck do you think happened between 1933 and 1940?

>>32617654
Why should I make good counter arguments in an argue with idiots? They wont understand them anyway.

>>32617479
Wrong its predicted to fall, Russian population pyramid is upside down my dude.

>>32617180
The fact that Russia gets carriers from France?

>>32617657
America had the money and the means to build all that infrastructure, and even then America had the means to recover from an economic slump, unlike the russians today

>>32617654
Http://zenrus.RU to see wonderful Russia economic

>>32617707
I don't see the French selling an aircraft to France. Since the Mistrals the Russians were supposed to buy ended up in Egypt.

>>32617711
>America
Nigger you completely forgot about a country which practically collasped and rebuilt it's army to storm over the whole of europe. You severly underestimate russia. Here's hoping your generals aren't as a retarded as you with your lack of foresight

>>32617726
>Http://zenrus.RU
what I'm seeing is the price per barrel and the exchange rate

>>32617657
America wasn't building much. The 1920s saw massive cuts to military spending, because there were no wars in the foreseeable future. The 1930s continued this because of the Depression.
The American buildup only began in the late 1930s when it became clear that there was a war coming and the US needed to play catch-up.

>>32617771
Not talking about america.

>>32617742
Storm over the whole of Europe while getting more than half of their supplies from allies, even the most basic shit like socks and grain. They had / have a lot of people and not much else. The have massive -potential- manufacturing capability but nothing to pay their workers with, and unsatisfied workers give you unsatisfactory equipment as we are still seeing today.

>>32617840
Knew you'd assume russia. You're fucking retarded.

File: gdp_ppp.png (45KB, 504x469px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 504x469px

>>32617419

>>32617877
They way you write is is way more retarded than I could ever try to be. Learn how context works and maybe next time you can put together a coherent sentence.

ib4 pretending

>>32617419
Doesn't matter
>>32617200
Don't bet against that happening
>>32617374
Yes it does. Hell they'd have even more if they stop spending money on bullshit. And learn to create vehicles that has some fucking longevity for once. Let alone cannibalize the junk they have in their junkyards...

>>32617200
>After the Admiral Kuznetsov breaks down
It will be repaired.
>or is retired
It won't be retired until they are building a new carrier.
>I don't think
What you think is completely irrelevant.
>Naval Aviation in Russia has dwindled over the past few years
Except it is exactly over the past few years when they began to receive modern multirole aircraft like Su-30SM and MiG-29KR.
>Still awaiting production/delivery
It is already produced and delivered.
>>32617374
>basic economic/political analysis
By a 4chan poster.
>>32617419
>Russian economy is the size of Spain right now
Nah, it is the size of Germany.
>>32617696
>Wrong
Right.
>its predicted to fall
It was predicted never to rise on the first place. Where are your yid "predictions" now?
>>32617707
As a political move, widely unpopular in Russia.

>>32617840
>getting more than half of their supplies from allies
American propaganda is this desperate. All lend-lease did was plugging holes in their production as they moved industry to Ural. Considerable, but far from "half of their supplies".

>>32617180
>Based on what, your ass?
On lack of shipyards large enough to build a carrier.

>>32618487
>What the fuck is Baltic Shipyard?

>>32618501
No cranes, no space, no personal. Busy with building tankers and icebreakers for years ahead. Only facility capable to build a carrier is busy with modernization of Kirov-class and has Kuznetsov scheduled for modernization. It will keep it busy fr years.

>>32618555
And no one ever said they are planning to begin construction next month. Both Baltic Shipyard and Northern Shipyard can build it, as well as Sevmash, which is however busy indeed.

>>32618591
They are gonna build a separate shipyard for it which is extremely expensive. Fleet always receives rests of defence budget. And Russia is going to cut defence budget in next few years, they already cut it for 2017. Fleet will suffer most. It is highly possible that this cuts will lead to end of carrier program or it delay for very-very long time.

>>32618646
>They are gonna build a separate shipyard for it
Sorry, I trust USC president more than a random no-name from 4chan.
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3175946
>It is highly possible that this cuts will lead to end of carrier program
Your predictions are irrelevant.
>or it delay for very-very long time
It was a long-time plan on the first place.

>>32618746
>http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3175946
>нaдeeмcя, чтo нaчнeм тaм cтpoить cyхoй дoк yжe в этoм гoдy
Basically - new shipyard. And it cost about billion of old dollars or half of billion of new dollars.

>>32616489

>How about no.
Fox is an indirect subsidiary of the Kremlin, what's the problem?

Slav shit is shit, news at 11
But
>O
>I
>AM
>LAFFIN

>ITT: /k/ tries to understand economic arguments and pretends to relate very simple numbers they still don't understand from the top of a Google search as to why Russia will never build a navy again

Wew, /k/, have you tried calling the DoD? They pay millions to defense analysts to analyse these kinds of things but it looks like you guys got this all figured out. Turns out you don't need a PhD in economics and a masters in global finance or banking to do be a Defense think tank analyst anymore; you just need to use the top of Google and talk out of your ass.

Please. /k/. Stop. I have a B.comm and it hurts me inside to read this thread.

That means you
>>32617419
>>32617374
>>32617711
>>32617726
>>32617771
>>32617952
(Don't use fucking PPP, please. That hurts even more)
>>32618746

It's painfully obvious you're talking out of your ass completely. Next time just don't post about economics when you clearly have no grasp on it. It would be like /k/ trying to explain mechanical engineering and debating gas impingement on a dynamics level.

>>32617180
As other anons have said, building a ship this large (or even modernization really) is extremely expensive. The likelihood that they can scrape enough funds together that they'll start designing it is not very high.

>>32618972
No, it's not "new shipyard". It very clearly says that it is not and specifies which shipyards can build it.
>>32619124
Of us two I'm the only one referring to an actual source, while you indeed are only spewing bullcrap out of your ass. Next time try harder.

>>32619305
The likelihood of your opinion becoming relevant is about the same as the chance of Hillary winning 2016 presidential elections.

>>32619348
>Ecks dee I Google'd a source that means I know what I'm talking about
>N-n-n-no you d-d-d-don't know what YOU'RE TALKINGA BOUT
>>>/trash/

>>32619380
Butthurt ,are we?

File: 1335010664257.jpg (110KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x951px

>>32620110
I have a source and base my point on it, you don't. GTFO.

>>32620158
I'm
>>32619102
>>32619124
And I'm saying that the entire thread from an economics point of view physically hurts and you should all feel bad for being so retarded.

File: Opinion still trash, please get out.png (5KB, 358x98px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 358x98px

>>32620277
related

>>32620158
Ahhh. Its the proofs slav.

I found the DNA you wanted!

>>32620277
>I'm
So you are not even referring to any of my points regarding the shipyards and still talk out of your ass on economic argument ITT. Either say something intelligible or GTFO.

>>32620295
>Muh proofs
>Coming from a shitposting swine that has no source to base his point on

>>32620299
>still talk out of your ass on economic argument
God, I fucking hate Russians and your inability to comprehend English.

Bluntly, you're a typical /k/ moron. Please stick to more simple things like firearms at best and away from economics at all costs. Thank you.

File: bow.jpg (1MB, 1500x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1200px

how many flight per hour can an american carrier do, just asking?

>>32620324
Its a ship, it can't fly.

File: km-ekranoplan.jpg (38KB, 640x293px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x293px

>>32620327
not with that attitude

>>32620324
2 heavy brah.


Are you stupid?

>2017
>giving a flying fuck to meme carriers

y-you better buy our Uboots

Russia should invest in a surface fleet. That devours money which could be better use elsewhere, like professionalizing their ground forces, modernizing their airborne, and sending military aid to Assad.

People who are proud of aircraft carriers don't realize they are giant money toilets. Fine for colonial power projection but that's about it.

Sortie rates vary with mission range but here's a recent exercise example:

https://blog.usni.org/2009/08/27/the-monster-myths-of-the-cvl-concept

I was USAF, not Navy, but exercise sortie rates are typically less than max rates in wartime.

>>32620367
This. Most of /k/ fat/vatniks compare equipment without any context to tactics, doctrine, economy. Only a retard would say that Russia needs carriers, as their doctrine is purely defensive since 1940s at least, they don't need to power project, as most of their enemies are just on the other side of the borders (thanks NATO expansion), requiring a focus on ground forces, and their economy can't support having both in good state.

>>32620387
>as their doctrine is purely defensive since 1940s at least
that is where you are wrong

>>32620394
Broofs?

>>32617200
Russia were buying a couple of minstrel classes from France until Crimea.
If they get another carrier it will be a LPH with a ramp like that.

>>32620387
but thats the fucking point, we need to argue about irrelevant shit that will never happen in order for me to forget about shit in my life
Russians are subhumans and they cant do anything right because they are poor

>>32620447
Russia were?
why do i see these retarded spelling mistakes almost every time on /k/?
>Russian invaded Ukraine
>Russia are shit
It makes absolutely no sense, unless the victims of communism are here in their semi-safe space after they got kicked out of /pol/ in 2015, or right after Debaltsevo.

>>32620415
Their doctrine was basically only about steamrolling europe. Have you talked to former Warsaw Pact officers? To quote a former GDR officer from my family: I had to know how to attack and conquer this and that areas in Germany and France, but they didnt even bothered to really train us to how to defend the area we where stationed in, that was always something that came last at best.

>>32619124
Nominal matters if you buy your ships from the world market, a new Russian carrier would not be bought from the world market but made in Russia and paid in Russia. A ton of ship steel and an hour of construction work in Russia do not cost as much as in the USA or Spain, basic economics, therefore the can buy more with the money they have than other countries, so you have to use PPP.

>>32620465
>let me tell you what is wrong on /k/
>Mistral? What Mistral, how would i know anything about Mistral, when it only had been debated to death here on /k/
You tried. >>>/pol/

>>32620495
Mist/ral is in Egypt i think. And they will buy the KA-52's and 52K's to put on it.
Thats literally all i know about the Mistral.

>>32620387
>most of their enemies are just on the other side of the borders (thanks NATO expansion)
It's been like that since the Soviet Union. Don't blame NATO because the Russians have an inferiority complex.

File: Боевая работа авиации ТАВКР «Адмирал Кузнецов» в Средиземном море у берегов Сирии (2016 год)2.webm (308KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1280x720px

>>32616436
Good on them. Getting actual experience while traveling around the world is much better than rusting away somewhere beyond the Arctic circle. Too bad that most of this experience will be for nothing considering there is no budget nor the need to build any carrier aircraft or conduct carrier ops. Carriers do look cool as heck though.
Now those Mistrals would probably be quite useful though, they can carry all sorts of stuff and be used as command posts, mobile hospitals and whatnot. Not sure about the helicopters they would've carried though, all the active fighting is happening far from the shoreline.

>>32620506
So where were you when we had threads about a year long from vatniks all about how France will have to:
-sell the Mistral to them no matter what
didnt happen
-pay a huge fine when it is not sold to them
didnt happen
-no one is going to buy it when it is not sold
didnt happen
-will only be able to sell it for much less
didnt happen
-etc

File: 00002.jpg (337KB, 1600x552px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1600x552px

>>32616436
"In the course of two months of their participation in the combat actions, naval aviation pilots have carried out 420 combat sorties, 117 of them were night ones".
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12107843@egNews

>>32620528
>carried out 420 combat sorties
that is the garbage again where russians declared every bomb drop as an sortie, isnt it?

That sortie count includes shore-based sorties. Note the wording. The "pilots" carried out the sorties.

Of course carriers (all of them) suck for sortie generation compared to a shore base so it made sense to fly them to Khmeimim and operate out of there.

Figure 12 (later 10 due to losing two) fixed wing aircraft available for the attack sorties. Then average at least one aircraft down for maintenance/repairs/cann'ing parts which would be typical for a very well supplied US squadron.

It was good training for Russia and a mediagenic kindness to US military-industrial-corporate complex corporations who want to increase the size of the US Navy and waste more of our taxpayer dollars, but it's hardly fearsome.

File: baitzkrieg.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>32618165
>Nah, it is the size of Germany.

>>32620700
Us carriers are highly competitive with similarly sized land bases (plz dont go "muh rammstein") when talking about sortie rate. Opening days of OIF were fucking insane.

File: 1480217928717.png (286KB, 326x509px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 326x509px

>>32616436
>Everyone is spouting out "information" from their ass
Basically, this thread.

>>32617952
>PPP
Neck yourself.

This is pretty amusing to watch.
Country wasting billion of dollars on absolutely pointless deployment, when half of its population is literally starving.

>>32620883
Yeah, sure. Better watch RT, I'm right?

>>32620904
A spain tier economy isn't as bad as it was in the 90's when Russia was Bangladesh tier

File: kPwDhNx.png (89KB, 800x1600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x1600px

>>32620913
It's not what you think. What i'm saying is that almost everyone in this thread is either looking for other person's source, and when they do see it, they diss it as "shit". Like, other /k/ threads these days.

>>32620957
>almost everyone in this thread is either looking for THE other person's
fixed

>>32620484
Can confirm. Dad was in gdr army and doctrine was to bring the fight to the enemy. "Not a single drop of blood on home soil" or something like that.

>>32620989
It was more about starting the fight, no one on both sides really thought that the West or NATO would attack first.

>>32618165
it peaked in 92 it's already falling kiddo

US and EU blow billions in Syria and lose
>wew

>>32620989
Yep.

If it would have worked is another thing entirely.

Now, they DID have defensive tactics, they had to tell their client states and allies what to do if shit hit the fan. Problem is, is that these tactics are terrible.

Iraqi Republican guard used textbook soviet tactics in the first gulf war.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-01-12T15-44-28.077Z.png (43KB, 1341x447px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1341x447px

>>32621074
>it's already falling
Bitch, please.

>>32621043
>no one on both sides really thought that the West or NATO would attack first
This is what NATOfaggots actually believe.

>>32620533
No, it is mad 4chan fatnik in denial garbage.

File: 392436[1].jpg (94KB, 296x475px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 296x475px

>>32620533

>>32621091
So are you saying tactics of a gigantic military block in Europe are not suitable for a tiny obsolete Arab military in a plain desert? Whew, hold on there buddy, not everyone is this open-minded.

>>32621559
>>32621572
>>32621646
>faggots
>fatnik
>denial
>damage control
You can already tell who most likely made all those posts by those few words.

>>32617138
agreed- as far as I can tell, 2 months at 2.5 sorties a day is fucking legit.

>>32621657
>tiny obsolete Arab military
>tiny
>iraqi army at the beginning of first gulf war.
How about no?

>>32621687
Putin. Personally. He hacked 4chan.

>>32621902
>exaggerated ironic response
So how was your day, Armatard?

>>32621730
You are comparing it to WarPac. Let that sink. Also completely exhausted by the war with Iran.

>>32622492
One was trained by the other. Let that sink. Also brand new equipment from USSR.

>>32621687
>Lies!
Allies were plotting against the USSR even before the WWII ended and your shitposting implications are irrelevant when there's an actual .mil source specifying the amount of sorties and targets hit:
>In the course of two months of their participation in the combat actions, naval aviation pilots have carried out 420 combat sorties, 117 of them were night ones. Almost all the flights took were performed in difficult meteorological conditions. 1,252 terrorist facilities were hit. Strikes were made on the infrastructure, concentrations of insurgents and military hardware, fire positions and strong points of illegal armed groups.
Stay mad.

>>32622492
>le tiny army
>Iraqi army in first gulf war
You are literally wrong, dont act like you have reakky anything to add to this discussion, when you cant even admit such obvious wrong stuff and actually taking consequences.

File: 1446671502001.jpg (112KB, 604x473px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 604x473px

>>32622513
>obvious irrelevant vatnik side topic while leaving out vital details, like always
>you butthurt
I love how vatniks are literally not able to discuss anything anymore and only fall back to the same overused cliche tactics.

>>32622511
>Moving goalposts
The original implication was that Soviet tactics in Europe were "terrible" because "Iraqi Republican guard used textbook soviet tactics in the first gulf war". Even if they were using the very same tactics, which I sincerely doubt, tactics suitable for the entire fucking WarPac are not suitable for a random Arab shithole. Stop spewing bullshit, please.
>Training Arabs
Right...
>brand new equipment from USSR
That would include having T-72B obr.1989 and T-80U tanks, modern air superiority fighters, S-300, Tor and Buk SAMs as well as some other neat things like Ranzhir C&C, Polyana-D4 ICS, Liman ECM and others. Did they have this actual brand new equipment from USSR? No my dear, they operated T-72M1, S-125 and fucking Fan Song radars.

>>32622657
>Moving goalposts
>calling iraqi army in first gulf war 'tiny obsolete Arab military'
It is like pottery.

Are you the Armatard?

>>32622554
>Muh very stroknk iraq army, major victory!
A bunch of exhausted Arabs on 70s tanks with 50s air defence.

>>32622670
>Not referring to the actual point
>Keep moving goalposts
Are you an fatnik?

>>32622585
>The actual source is posted
>He is still in "lies!" mode
Your picture applies to you more than to anyone else.

>>32622674
>>32622681
>>32622703
That obvious sameposting, that obvious goalshifting, that inability to answer to the Armatard question, that obvious 'No! You!' response.

So that everyone gets this: This is a known vatnik retard, so dont waste your time with him, he craves the attention, because no one would otherwise talk to him. To get an idea how bad it is: At the end of an average Armatard plagued thread even the other vatniks dont support him in any way anymore.

>>32622745
Do you sincerely think that if you'll keep moving goalposts and ignore the point you will get something out of this? I have sources. You have nothing except your delusions, fatnik.

>>32622880
You think you can fuck up thread after thread with your brainfarts and still think someone will really discuss anything with you anymore? You managed to get distinguishable with your bad posting and discussion style on an anonymous board, this is about how low it can get. Now go again on your self declared victory parade no one else will attend.

>>32622991
I refer to the sources. You refer to your brainfarts and delusions, fatnik.

>>32623041
Still desperate to talk to someone? Who would have guessed that!

File: 1366454118249.jpg (69KB, 429x409px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 429x409px

>>32623088
Poor delusional fatnik still has no sources to refer to.

>>32623152
So desperate! That is very sad.

>>32621902

In reality though, Russian intelligence was likely using /pol/ as a training and acclimatization environment for a certain number of years.

File: Aigaion.jpg (65KB, 940x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 940x500px

>>32620327
Gotta think with Belkan magic son.

File: offput.gif (3MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x180px

>>32617200
maybe they could buy a Wasp-class from the US navy.

>mfw

File: lavina project (1).jpg (375KB, 1417x824px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1417x824px

>>32625405
It would be even more unpopular than Mistral purchase. What for, if instead they could develop an actual modern domestically produced ship?

>>32625445
>domestically produced ship
Someone post the history of russian navy.

>>32625478
>hurr durr muh memes

>>32625493
It is for you, like it is with Russia and the Mistral, they dont get it.

>>32621551
>no source
damn now you got me

>>32620327
You made me chuckle.

>>32625511
>It is for you, like it is with Russia and the Mistral, they also dont think it is funny.
ftfy

>>32625535
>LLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=RU
Piss off.

>>32621078
the kurds and the iraqi government have made the most headway in the past 2 years of any groups involved in the Syrian war, and they are the only two supported by coalition airpower.

Seems to me like it works!

>>32617419

corruption and low oil prices. Even with high oil prices they wouldn't do much better.

>>32616952
I hope you know that Britain is just finishing building two.

>>32622657
Seriously? Soviet warplanners expected the Iraqi army to kill tens of thousands of Americans. They were scared shitless when Iraq not only lost, but got so completely blown out.

> they operated T-72M1, S-125 and fucking Fan Song radars

which comprised the vast majority of soviet frontline weapons at the time. You seem to have the exact same problem thinking as the Chicom shitposters, in that both you and they think that as soon as a system gets tested, then instantly all available units are upgraded to that system. To prove this point see the Chechenya war. it occured several years after the gulf war, and effectively none of the soviet armored used in that conflict had Kontakt 5. Which means even several years after the gulf war, the soviets had not even come close to replacing 20% of their armor with T-72B obr.1989, or better.

Remember after something is designed and built, it takes years to field it in large numbers.

File: HMS_Queen_Elizabeth.jpg (160KB, 1280x859px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1280x859px

>>32626080

>>32620354
fuck off Fritz. carriers are the most relevant naval vessels.

>>32626177
Seriously. They expected old rusted shit to rekt Americans, but it turned out Americans were not as pathetic as they though.
>which comprised the vast majority of soviet frontline weapons at the time
And the vast majority of US frontline weapons were what? M motherfucking 60. Or do you think Americans got 4000 M1A1 right away in 1986? No, my dear, they operated fucking Pattons. Shit that any Soviet tank since 1964 can rekt without even getting its own paint scratched.
>as soon as a system gets tested, then instantly all available units are upgraded to that system
S-300 is a 1978 thing, T-80U is a 1985 thing and so is T-72B, Tor is a 1986 thing, But is a 1979 thing. By the time of the Gulf War these were 5 to 13 years in service. Not tested, prick, in service and full scale production. Iraq didn't even have S-200, they were fully reliant on mid to short range air defence with static radars and obsolete tanks without ERA.
>the soviets had not even come close to replacing 20% of their armor with T-72B obr.1989, or better
When you have hordes of tanks in service, tens of fucking thousands, it's will be hard to meet percentage scale no matter what.

>>32617180
Money and the fact they don't really need one.

In case you didn't notice, they're not stuck of a bumfuck island or a continent separated from the rest of Europe.

>>32626475
>stuck of a bumfuck island or a continent separated from the rest of Europe
That's what you need ten for. They traditionally use aircraft carriers as ASW or air-defence platforms, so having at least one per Northern and Pacific fleets would be a nice option.

>>32626177
>To prove this point see the Chechenya war. it occured several years after the gulf war, and effectively none of the soviet armored used in that conflict had Kontakt 5
Except the First Chechen War occurred after the dissolution of USSR and is known for correspondingly fucked up logistics over its duration. Nevertheless you are wrong, T-90 debuted there in extremely limited numbers and there were some T-72B obr.1989 too.
>Which means
Only that it was a fuck-up. They were sometimes also using tank models that were supposed to have first generation Kontakt-1 ERA without the actual ERA blocks. It is how fucked up logistics were in that war.

>>32626435
>so is T-72B
in your previous post you said:
>T-72B obr.1989 and T-80U tanks
both of which have kontakt 5 armor. Again in Chechnya a war fought several years after the gulf war, only 15% of Russian tanks had kontakt 5. This means they were a small percent on the force.

>Or do you think Americans got 4000 M1A1 right away in 1986
1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia for the gulf war. which along with the rest of the coalition destroyed some 4000 iraqi tanks for exactly zero lost do to enemy action. Also fun fact, the M1A1, which in 91 was already the bulk of US tanks, could not be frontally penetrated from more than ~500m by the best Soviet APFSDS round ever made.

So Yes a majority of the US tanks during the gulf war were indeed M1A1s which where superior to the frontline soviet tanks.

what happened to your boasts about?
>Tor, Buk, Ranzhir C&C, Polyana-D4 ICS, Liman ECM and other

Oh thats right they don't make it past the bar you yourself set.

Alright moving onto to s-300 system. This is the single example that you provided that Iraq was lacking yet the soviets had in number. Literally everything else was the same equipment as the bulk of soviet frontline units. Now it would have shot down more coalition aircraft then the Iraqi's managed to; however, given the natural mobility of aircraft is superior to that of a car, it coalition airstrikes would still have commenced albeit with greater coalition loses. Given the fact the utter dominance the M1A1 had over the soviet tanks of the time, a drop in the number of CAS would not have changed the outcome of any hypothetical war between the USSR and NATO.

>>32626592
Attack subs are sill superior choice for ASW.

Im not saying carriers are worthless, just money is better spent upgrading Russian land/air forces, which are inevitably going to be used in the upcoming future.

>>32626757
>Attack subs are sill superior choice for ASW.

I have no idea why I added this. Adds nothing to conversation.

Autism.

>>32618165
>need France to build Mistrals for you because you lack the ability to build ships of that size
>a political move

>>32626720
>Except the First Chechen War occurred after the dissolution of USSR and is known for correspondingly fucked up logistics over its duration. Nevertheless you are wrong, T-90 debuted there in extremely limited numbers and there were some T-72B obr.1989 too.

Thank you for proving my point. my point was that the majority of frontline units (you know the ones actually sent into combat if a war starts) were older models than the T-90 and the T-72B obr 1989. Also fun fact, the T-90's in Chechnya one and two were used in an indirect fire role. The Russians only used them as small mobile artillery pieces.

>Only that it was a fuck-up. They were sometimes also using tank models that were supposed to have first generation Kontakt-1 ERA without the actual ERA blocks. It is how fucked up logistics were in that war.

and yet you seem to believe that is a war with NATO the soviet logistic chain would have been more intact. By 91, the USSR was completely rotten both militarily and politically. In any fight with the west, the soviets would have had exactly the same nightmare logistics problem, coupled with a much more powerful and aggressive enemy. Hence instead of losing a province to guerilla fighters, they would have lost everything to NATO.

>>32626720
>Nevertheless you are wrong because a handful of newer tanks being tested represent a meaningful amount.

>>32626435
>No, my dear, they operated fucking Pattons. Shit that any Soviet tank since 1964 can rekt without even getting its own paint scratched.

Oh it is the slavboo who insists Soviet armor was made of the crystallized blood of Stalin himself.

>>32626729
>in your previous post you said
That's because T-72B was still good at this time, while the initial argument was about "brand new equipment from USSR". T-72B obr.1989 was brand new, T-72B was just good enough.
>only 15% of Russian tanks had kontakt 5
Firstly, you are just pulling this number out of your ass. Secondly, like I said it's hard to meet percentage scale when you operate more tanks than the entire planed combined and even seemingly small percent then turns into a big number.
>1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia
The amount of T-80U/UD alone was over 2,000, not even counting T-72B obr.1989.
>the bulk of US tanks in 1991
Since you are so desperate to refer to the overall numbers, that would be M60.
>could not be frontally penetrated from more than ~500m by the best Soviet APFSDS round ever made.
3BM46 could do it from more than 2 km. Need I remind you it took Americans 8 years and the dissolution of the USSR to develop means to even attempt to scratch paint behind Kontakt-5?
>So Yes a majority of the US tanks during the gulf war were indeed M1A1s
The majority of the US tanks USED in the Gulf War. If you are willing to only count frontline service, the majority of Soviet tanks were T-80U and T-72B/B obr.1989.
>which where superior to the frontline soviet tanks
By no means. Flanking T-72M1 on Bradleys doesn't prove jack shit in regard of actual frontline Soviet tanks. The US only came close to T-80U and T-72B obr.1989 levels of protection with the introduction of uranium M1A1HA.

>>32626729
>Oh thats right they don't make it past the bar you yourself set.
>Tor is a 1986 thing, Buk is a 1979 thing
Yeah, right, keep talking to yourself.
>Literally everything else was the same equipment as the bulk of soviet frontline units
No, it was not, and I just explained you what equipment was it that was making a gigantic difference. Yet you just ignored it saying that a mass-produced for 5 to 13 years system doesn't count. Even the fucking S-200 could've helped them.
>given the natural mobility of aircraft is superior to that of a car, it coalition airstrikes would still have commenced albeit with greater coalition loses
Only that these strikes would be facing the largest air force on the planet instead of a bunch of dusty MiG-25s and three dozens monkey model MiG-29s that they met in Iraq.
>utter dominance the M1A1 had over the soviet tanks of the time
In having shitty armour.

File: 11711 ivan gren degaussing.jpg (436KB, 2402x1774px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 2402x1774px

>>32626757
>just money is better spent upgrading Russian land/air forces
Regarding the Navy right now the money are better spent with equipping it with large amount of smaller and cheaper modern ships. When they finish with corvettes and frigates they will have enough fresh experience, time, money and free shipyards to move to larger projects like destroyers, LHDs and carriers.
I'd say renewing their amphibious fleet is a priority, since it is quickly wearing out and two Ivan Gren-class landing ships won't be an efficient stopgap for too long.

>>32627338
>Yeah, right, keep talking to yourself.
Dude, now you're trying to rewrite history. Buk DID enter service in 1979, Bum-M1 - 1982. Tor DID enter service in 1986 and it is a fact. I don't understand what are you trying to say.
Also, I don't understand what you two are trying to prove to each other.

>>32627321
>The amount of T-80U/UD alone was over 2,000
>total number of a semi comparable tank vs the number deployed to a specific area

neat

>>32626782
About a half of those Mistrals' hulls were build in Russia. It was a political move and it was a very unpopular decision.
>>32626789
>my point was that the majority of frontline units (you know the ones actually sent into combat if a war starts) were older models
And my point was that it is not a proof of anything, since even the tanks that were supposed to have ERA sometimes didn't have it back then exactly because of how fucked up everything was after the dissolution of the USSR.
>Also fun fact
Fun fact is that just a couple posts above you said "effectively none of the soviet armored used in that conflict had Kontakt 5".
>and yet you seem to believe that is a war with NATO the soviet logistic chain would have been more intact
I do, since it was intact. Not so much after you split a country into 15 pieces and dismantle your military block. That's, like, something even a complete idiot could probably understand.
>By 91, the USSR was completely rotten both militarily and politically
Cool story, keep dreaming.
>>32626810
He is wrong, since he said "effectively none".
>>32626840
Oh, it's the fatnik who insists M60 was not obsolete by 1964.
>of the crystallized blood of Stalin himself
Knowing that Soviet composite armour was pretty much space magic for the US where "limitations in manufacturing capacity and the added cost however lead to this special armor being dropped", yeah I wouldn't find it too unlikely that some of you at that time thought it was the crystallized blood of Stalin himself.

>>32625405

>he doesn't realize that the Russians are working on a cut-rate deal to buy the Mistrals from Egypt

>>32627440
That's my whole point that these systems were years in full scale production and operational service, while he seem to imply they somehow were not and wouldn't have made a difference in Europe in comparison to the Gulf War.
>>32627459
>a semi comparable
>180 mm more vs. APFSDS, 620 mm more vs. HEAT than M1A1
Lol.
>vs the number deployed to a specific area

>>32627601
>180 mm more vs. APFSDS, 620 mm more vs. HEAT than M1A1

lol no, and dat lack of thermal sights

>>32627535
>Oh, it's the fatnik who insists M60 was not obsolete by 1964.
>tfw the 1962 M60A1 was killing T-72's in 1991

>>32627321

> The US only came close to T-80U and T-72B obr.1989 levels of protection with the introduction of uranium M1A1HA

Consider that M1A1 HA entered service in 1989, T-72 Obr.89 entered service in 1989, and T-80U with Kontakt 5 entered service in 1987.

>>32627635
Lol yes.
>>32627672
Post tfw ancient Soviet ATGM are killing Abramses right now. Like I said, flanking T-72M1 on Bradleys doesn't prove jack shit in regard of actual frontline Soviet tanks.

>>32627736
>T-80U with Kontakt 5 entered service in 1987
In 1985.

>>32616436
>fatnik vs vatnik thread #2134^12^8 (now with 60% more blogsourcing)
>1. muh numbers are right ur's r wrong
>2. no u (ad infinitum)

>>32627635
>>32627601
>>32627459
>>32627338
>>32627321
>>32627672
...and suddenly the meme naval shitposting thread turns into a meme tank shitposting thread.

>>32627756

T-80U Obr.84 is the only T-80U in service in 85.

That's got kontakt-1.

>>32627761
The difference is that one posts actual sources and another posts nothing but his hurt feels.
>...and suddenly the meme naval shitposting thread turns into a meme tank shitposting thread
You missed demographics shitposting, kek.

>>32627773
Quit bullshitting, please. I give you a rebate on mixing up T-80A and T-80U.

Friendly reminder:
>>32622745

>>32626772

Well, it's probably an accurate statement.

>>32620887
PPP is more actual for the autarky leaning economy.

Well, they did show a scale model of some prospective carrier like and year or two ago. Now, when, if ever, it's gonna be built, well, no one can say.

>>32630907
It is an initiative project by one of many research institute. It is not adopted by Ministry of Defence yet. Same as many projects of "russian mistral".