ITT: Weapons with bad reputation that did nothing wrong

I wasn't aware the F-105 had a bad reputation. Would you care to elaborate?

>>33149324
It was called the Thud, or triple threat.

It could drop a bomb on you, shoot you with it's gun, and finally "the damn thing could fall on you too."

It got the rep for getting shot down by AA fire a lot. On the flip flop, it was an unexpected mig killing machine.

When I was in the Airforce my final base was Edwards, Edwards like a retirement home for every miltiary project and all its workers...ever. I have heard first hand stories from maintainers who lived their lives deployed, on carriers, overseas, in thailand supporing vietnam, etc, etc.

The F-105 apparently was legend, the moment the water injectors kicked in the flame would turn from blue to orange and the jet would kick off.

http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/Military/F105.html

>>33149228
What kind d of hippy dippy commies motherfucker hates on the F105 for fucks sake?????

>>33149228
The 105 was a gorgeous aircraft

File: 1440521506352.jpg (468KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 2048x1363px

FN2000.

The F-105 is one of the all-time great American warplanes. Anyone who hasn't read Col. Jack Broughton's wartime memoir "Thud Ridge" ought to pick up a copy. You'll come away from it with a huge amount of respect for that plane and the men who flew them.

File: f105g.gif (39KB, 504x228px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 504x228px

>>33149434
Wasn't the reason Thuds had such high loss rates because they were used as Wild Weasels when the tactics were still being literally made up on the fly?

>>33149590
Yeah basically.

Also the minor fact that north Vietnam at that time had the strongest air defense in the world

File: IMG_7143.jpg (417KB, 1800x765px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1800x765px

>>33149228

>>33149590
that, and the outstanding performance of Russian SAMs

File: 1471489932283.jpg (280KB, 1020x1813px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1020x1813px

Kurt Cobain's Browning A5.

Here folks, read about the hardships of being a thud pilot inna nam

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel_mission_5_November_1967

>>33149699
Wow cobain actually had some taste

>>33149228
>G36
>M16
>BMP1/BMP2
>T-72
>Leopard 2
>FAMAS
>S300/S400
>XM25

>>33149657

More like a super-heavy saturation of triple-A.

Vietnam was an astoundingly dangerous place to be an aviator. The losses of aircraft back then are unfathomable to us today.

File: me_bren_gun.jpg (305KB, 872x686px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 872x686px

>>33149228

>>33151075
>S300/S400
>Bad reputation
Lol what.

File: download (30).jpg (5KB, 240x149px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 240x149px

sandniggers go fucking crazy and praise allah when they shot down 1/10 of these when we literally destroyed the economic and social structure of half the middle east.

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

File: reaction51.jpg (61KB, 641x547px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 641x547px

>>33151075
>T-72
>G36
>BMP
Thank you!

>>33151021
>for lead

>>33151525
Kek

>>33149228
the f-105 dindu nuffin

>>33151235
Oh, but we lost Anon.

ALLAHU ACKBAR

File: 1486393190212m.jpg (33KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1024x576px

>>33149228

>>33150148
>free floating barrel
>lever delayed blowback

reeee why did they replace with an abortion piston ar

>>33149699
>Had taste
>Courtney Love

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren.

>>33151235
>sandniggers
I think you meant vatniks

File: ded BMP.jpg (60KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 564x423px

>>33151075
The BMP's reputation is well deserved
>S300/S400
what?

>>33149228
>tfw my granddad flew one in Vietnam and was the reason it had the nickname "the polish glider"

File: F-105 with recepticle nose art.jpg (39KB, 476x648px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 476x648px

>>33149590
>Wasn't the reason Thuds had such high loss rates because they were used as Wild Weasels when the tactics were still being literally made up on the fly?
That's part of it. Also shitloads of low-level bombing early in the war. LBJ didn't want to commit heavy bombers to Vietnam for bullshit political reasons so instead he just sent assloads of F-105s into the meatgrinder.

And USAF doctrine was so shit in those days. They were so scared shitless of SAMs that they sent bomb-laden single-engine fighters in at low altitude where every gook with an AK could reach 'em, then acted shocked when they started getting decimated by MiGs and Flak.
>>33150991
>Meanwhile, in the Navy...
https://www.intruderassociation.org/lighterside.pdf

>>33149228
>>33154270

German forces lost tons of 105s and their pilots. It came down to training, just as with the USAF.

Wild weasel mission had less impact, the 105 had the flying coffin label already. Just about every fast as fuck fighter gets relegated to wild weasel in its waning years. F4 phantoms did it up through gulf war one, and now the f16. Falcons have more life in them than did the others, and changing technology could mean that they don't have to go the same route. Could end up part of the f35 mission, but it remains to be seen.

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

>>33152600
Came here to post this

>>33153882
>The BMP's reputation is well deserved
delet this

File: 1481854213002.jpg (85KB, 537x521px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 537x521px

>>33151075

>T-72

>Literal war horse of every conflict since the 80s

>Reliable, durable, decent level of protection for its time

File: image-362425-panoV9-ossa-362425.jpg (28KB, 520x250px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 520x250px

>Great divebomber
>A joy to fly, fully capable of aerobatics
>Respectable payload for an attacker
>Easy to maintain and suited for field airstrips
>Delivered its payload with great accuracy and had automatic dive systems
>Inspired fear in the hearts of the enemy
>Doubled as a tank buster and attacker later on

But:

>Wastedcby horrible tactics during the battle of Britain
>Successfully deconstructed as "obsolete" by British propaganda as a result
>Suffered under enemy air superiority

A comparable Allied aircraft in the ETO would have wiped the floor with the krauts, just look at how good the SBD was

>>33154408
>German forces lost tons of 105s

what

>>33151075
>>33155266
T-72 and BMPs reputation is well deserved.

>>33151091
Thank you, based Bren, saving us from the Eternal Kraut

>>33155562
LeFH's or F-105's?

i'll kms

>>33154408
There are some pretty funny ballads written about the thud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hun_uUuufOs

http://www.burrusspta.org/offduty.html


I'm a Thud pilot, and I love my plane.
It is my body, I am it's brain.
My Thunder Chief loves me, and I love her too,
But I get the creeps, with only one seat and one engine too.


She's faster than lightening it says on her dials.
To get a Thud airborne takes only two miles.
She's packed with transistors, black boxes, diodes,
But stay alert, 'Cause you might get hurt when she explodes.

She totes more bombs than a B-17.
My F-105 has a gun and she's mean.
But there is one thing that curdles my blood,
It's lonesome up there, Alone in the air in my single seat Thud.

I love my Thud and she loves me too.
She soaks up Flak like a magnet can do.
If I get my hundred and I'm still alive,
I'll have no grief, Good-bye Thunderchief, My F-105!

>>33149590
>Wasn't the reason Thuds had such high loss rates because they were used as Wild Weasels when the tactics were still being literally made up on the fly?
Don't forget regular strike missions. Vietnam had an excellent multi-layered AD setup wherein anyone flying low enough to defeat SAMs was also low enough to get BTFO by AAA

>>33153383
>why did they replace
>lever delayed blowback in a caliber more powerful than .25ACP
You tell me

File: 1415219450353.jpg (285KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1920x1080px

>>33156326
T-72 was perfectly suitable for the type of combat, and the time, in was designed for.
Low profile, powerful gun with autoloader, good for mass production.

It's not a Western tank so it had a different design philosophy and envisioned role. Don't judge it purely on its pitiful performance by those who either don't have the basic upgrades or by those who put it into roles it was never designed for (Stationary positions, sending it into urban environments without infantry support, trying to go hulldown).
It's a tank made for offensive warfare where vehicles worked in waves to our maneuver and/or overrun enemies.

>>33151091
thank you based bren

>>33156380
Did you mean F-104s?

File: F-4J loaded for air-to-air.jpg (1MB, 1804x1372px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1804x1372px

>>33156275
Absolutely this.

>>33156515
retard

>>33156524

T-72 was also the cheaper Soviet tank, for the mechanized infantry that would follow the shock troops using T-64/T-80 tanks in a European land war.

>>33154270
Thuds were sent on low-level runs because going high and fast was no longer an option because of based S-25 Dvina.
Then it turned out Russian AAA wasn't bad either, and strict ground control of engagements brought MiGs to a somewhat higher level of efficiency than had been expected for.

>>33151091
Thank you Based Bren

>>33156799
This is true, but most Soviet tanks get lumped together due to the similar ammo system.
Leads to the reputation of: tank get hit, ammo carousel go boom, turret flies off.

>>33151091

THANK YOU BASED BREN

>>33151234
This.

I've rarely heard anyone mention those systems for anything else than claiming that it would annihilate the entire USAF.

>>33151021
have you heard his shtty music?Alternative rock ruined the 90s for me.

>>33154408
You mean 104's, right?

>>33156372
hah lol looks like u got chemtrail'd have fun being infertile loser

>>33157674
>Thuds were sent on low-level runs because going high and fast was no longer an option because of based S-25 Dvina.
That's what the idiotic strategic planners THOUGHT.... but in practice the SAMs were nowhere near as reliable and deadly as they thought (only some 1 in 30 actually hit) and were far easier to defeat (with jammer escort and so forth), and good old AAA turned out to remain a much bigger threat after all. This eventually led to a dramatic scaling-back of low-level bombing over North Vietnam, with later campaigns being conducted mostly from high altitudes.

>>33156524
Just to add, T-72A and especially B are far more capable than export models.
And T-72 was a workhorse.
Soviets deployed even more capable T-64's and T-80's in East Germany in huge numbers.
This board took a weird "anything Russian is shit" turn but in reality up till late 80's Soviets would've raped NATO in Germany in a conventional conflict, even accounting for all potential problems they would face.
Keep in mind that while Soviets had TENS OF THOUSANDS of T-64's, T-72's and T-80's, main US tank was M60A1.

File: Soviet_MiG-29_over_Alaska_1989_side_view.jpg (320KB, 1897x1308px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1897x1308px

Seems like a lot of Soviet tanks and Aircraft did poo poo doo doo on combat when exported. I know it's the whole 'monkey model' thing, but it seems like lots of times the equipment just wasn't used right.

Example was the MiG-29 Fulcrum. For the time it was a great overall aircraft. Amazing kinematic performance stuck with more or less 3+ gen avionics.

In a war with the Soviet Union, there would have been literally hundreds of Fulcrums in the air over the front hunting NATO stickers and bombers.

They would have had the numbers, the ground support, and the Su-27 Flankers to assist them. The F-15 obliterated the MiG-29, but it would struggle if for every eagle there was 3 ful runs converging on it. (You could almost get 3 Migs for the price of one F-15)

However, in actual combat over Yugoslavia and Iraq, the respective airforces sent up pathetic numbers of MiG-29's (2 at a time) with limited GCI and sent them against literal waves of US fighters, all of which have insane SA due to AWACS, datalink, etc. Also they had the worst versions of the MiG-29 built. Downgraded to shit in every way, didn't even have IFF

So is the MiG-29 as shifty as it's combat record, I'm not so sure. Not claiming it was the best, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it looks on the surface.


Now I'm not well versed at all in tanks, could you say the same sort of thing about the T-72 for example?

>>33161869
Of course. Export T-72's had worse ammo, primitive FCS, worse armor. And worse crews.
Desert Storm was basicaly turkey shooting. I mean it's a fucking desert. Monkey models stood no chance against Abrams. Range and precision mean far more when you fight on a totally flat almost featureless terrain.
I'm not saying Western troops didn't do a good job, but bragging about it is about the same as bragging about smashing a semi-blind paraplegic.

>>33149504
I wish FN still imported them.

>>33149650
[spoiler]>SQUISHY
>SQUISHY

>S Q U I S H Y
>S
>Q
>U
>I
>S
>H
>Y[/spoiler]

>>33161869
>Downgraded to shit in every way, didn't even have IFF
I highly doubt that. Even MiG-21s in Vietnam had IFF. I'd be willing to bet it wasn't that they didn't have it, but rather that they refrained from using it for whatever reason (perhaps the Americans had already cracked it and were able to exploit it for locating the MiGs like in the latter part of Vietnam, or perhaps were able to mimic a friendly signal making it useless).

>>33161577

The USSR didn't have that many T-64/T-72/T-80, around 1981/1982 they apparently had ten thousand of those in total, with the vast bulk of their tank reserves made up of T54/55s and T-62s. Though a surprising number of NATO tanks were similarly based on 50s designs (eg M47/48)

>>33163081

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_tank_formations

File: t-72 & mig-21.jpg (531KB, 1122x1450px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1122x1450px

>>33163081
>ten thousand of those in total
If this is not "that many", I don't know what is.

>>33149434
>>33149590

Mixture of doing Wild Weasel (so first into any enemy AA zone, last out) and the fact that it was the largest single engined jet plane meant it was hard to land or take off in - add in the engine not handling the warm moist air of vietnam and you have a plane that'd struggle to take off to begin with, was easy pickings for SAMs in mid air, then crash if you survived long enough to bring it back for a landing.

>>33163648

You said tens (plural) of thousands, I said "not that many", as in not tens of thousands. T-72 production did ramp up through the 80s, but I just like that Wikipedia page showing the ridiculous numbers of T-54/55s and M47/48s that would end up being pressed into service as late as the 1980s if the war went on longer than a few weeks.

>>33163081
To be fair, you can't scoff at anything that was armed with the 105mm in the 80s, M48A5s, upgraded Centurions and even Leopard1s were quite capable of penetrating even T-72s and 80s with ammo of the time.

The biggest thing people tend to forget is that ammunition finally caught up to armor in the late 70s and has held a lead since with very few exceptions.

>>33149590
THey had super high loss rates because the airforce was forced to use them in roles they weren't designed for.

They were designed to fly in low and fast and drop a nuke and then escape. Fagnamara and Libcuck Johnson made the airforce use them as tactical bombers which required large payloads and higher altitudes.

>>33163774
T-72 ERA was basically immune to western ammo which lead to the development of segmented APFSDS rounds....

>>33151235
F-117 is the most sexy, fearsome and awe inspiring machine man has ever created.

File: q4.jpg (26KB, 700x474px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 700x474px

>>33163774
I'm not the anon you were talking to, was just passing by.

>>33163797
In the Iran-Iraq War even Chieftains proved to be less than capable against T-72. With the introduction of composite armour 105 mm was completely out of league.

>>33151235
>Bad Reputation
>117
I don't think so

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

>>33162612
possible they turned it off for fear of emission leak.

>>33151091
Isn't that the Chinese one?

>>33149642
beautiful

>>33149650
What's that?

>>33151091
>Thank you based Bren.

File: uuvjj2jibz2cmkab4zcv.jpg (378KB, 2400x1895px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 2400x1895px

>>33163851
>F-117 is the most sexy, fearsome and awe inspiring machine man has ever created
>sr71 exists
wrong

>>33156275
People think the Phantom was bad?

File: 1336081492680.jpg (279KB, 1200x930px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1200x930px

>>33166092
There's some folks that think the Phantom was bad because, like with the Thunderchief, had difficulties and poor performance. Poor performance because of bad policy, not because they were bad themselves.

File: Pierre Sprey.jpg (28KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 575x350px

>>33166092

>>33167334

The Phantom was the best fighter of its day, no question.

File: pierre sprey is the ultimate french fag.png (116KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 320x371px

>>33167378

Everytime I see this goblin I get triggered.

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

>>33151089
>The losses of aircraft back then are unfathomable to us today

Only if you are part of NATO, if you're not you are praying for Vietnam levels of losses
.
US loss rates vietnam per 1000 sorties
F-105: 2.078
F-4: 0.720
F-100: 0.530
Average 1.071

Gulf war (losses due to enemy action):
0.328 overall

Kosovo
0.05 overall

OIF
0.07
Russia
Afghanistan: (just MANPADs)
15.55

Checnya I: (just MANPADs)
11.43 (to be fair they lost some 265 helicopters and planes at the start of the war, when the airbases were captured, after which the russians bombed their own planes and helis.)

Chechnya II: (just MANPADs)
2.25

georgia:(MANPADs and a couple of bucks)
20.1

>>33161869
BS, the MiG-29 sucked. In the ethiopian eritrian war, Eritrian Mig-29's outnumbered Eithiopian Su-27's in two different occasions and got BTFO each time.

in those engagements:
SU-27, 5-0-0
Mig-29 0-5-0

Don't buy Mig-29's buy Su-27s

File: HMS_Conqueror.jpg (60KB, 620x388px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 620x388px

>>33149228

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren

File: au revoir colonel sanders.webm (3MB, 1024x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x426px

>>33151091
Thank you based bren

>>33172018
And you get this data from where exactly?

>>33172242
The primer was already fired!

>>33149642

It deserved it's bad reputation completely.

It was so bad Lockheed had to bribe countries to buy it over the superior alternatives.

>>33172242
>Britbong gun
>getting used by the Oirish against Africans
They should really just join the club again.

>>33151091
Thank you based bren

>>33172260
many sources such as:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/c016682.pdf
https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20030900_cscp_art_officer_haas.pdf
http://www.ciaonet.org/cbr/cbr00/video/cbr_ctd/cbr_ctd_52.html
etc

Where you take the number of lost planes and divide by number of sorties. It was shocking just how high soviet and russian loses have been, but makes sense when you consider they were never designed to go up against SAMs, but rather to fight other fighters in the air. Add that to allowing enemy forces to literally camp 500m from an active airbase during Checnya and their loses make a hell of a lot of sense.

Oh the air to air battle records come from the sources cited here:
http://www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html

File: 1475388413706.jpg (68KB, 1079x1020px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1079x1020px

>>33172606
>is literaly the worst her Lockheed ever made
>costs as much as an aircraft carrier
Wrong. Worst jet. Worst company.

>>33172406
Well that makes sense when all your planes are mass produced garbage combined with god awful tactics

>>33168479
What about the mig21? I think it's a tie imho

>>33153948

No way you're Kutyna's nephew

>>33172018
>US loss rates vietnam per 1000 sorties
>Average 1.071
US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam. This figure would assume like 1400 sorties per day.

>>33172406
>and divide by number of sorties
I don't see any mention of the number of sorties in Afghan or both Chechnyas, except for one sentence that mentions over 4000 combat sorties in the first months of the Second Chechen War.
Here's an article suggesting 27000 missions were flown by transport aviation alone in Afghan:
http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/208

>>33172748
He wouldn't be his nephew, assuming he's telling the truth, he'd be his grandson

>>33173120
source?

>>33173172
I am discounting transport sorties, as transports generally don't engage in combat, just as I discount refueling sorties, AWACS sorties and everything else that does not involve getting close to combat. Hence combat sorties only.

>>33151091
Thank you Based Bren

>>33149642
I fucking hate how this thing looks

it looks like a pointy banana in profile from the side

that hideous T tail

>>33174556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
>I am discounting transport sorties
Then you should discount transport losses as well.
>Hence combat sorties only.
You are yet to provide a singe source.

>>33174556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War
Mostly helicopters.

>>33167334
Who the fuck says Phantoms had "poor performance"?

File: 8354566162_06d5cb3954_b.jpg (564KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1024x678px

>>33164560
Even T-62's were found to be capable of penetrating Chieftains at normal combat ranges in the Gulf, which led to the development of Stillbrew add-on armor. It wasn't helped by the fact that the Iranian skill at armored warfare was piss-poor.

>>33151091
Thank you based Czech Bren.

File: le turkey man.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>33174919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

>>33156404
Is that around circleville Ohio on 23 going north to Columbus?

>>33155415
>A comparable Allied aircraft in the ETO would have wiped the floor with the krauts, just look at how good the SBD was

P-47 and Typhoon performed better and were outstanding at air to mud. P-47 didn't have silly liquid cooled engine which is a liability in ground attack.

Stuka was a nice fossil.

>>33172696
Phantom was far more versatile then the MiG. Not even a contest. Phantom had a larger and much more varied payload. The airframe lasted so long because it was originally designed for carrier landings. It performed well in all weathers.

MiG had a short range, small payload and primitive avionics.

>>33174805
>>33174819
Having checked my sources all loses are combat aircraft, fighters bombers, attack helicopters, as sorties are only the combat sorties. So C-130 does not count, AC-130 does. Chinooks don't count, but apaches do.

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren.

>>33164560
M111 Hetz round... An L7 or M68 with it would be good for the era.

That being said, T-72 totally underrated. T-64 even. Both would've been a bitch to deal with. Just ask the South Africans...

>>33151235
When you word it like that, it sounds a bit like they might have come out on top

File: MzRCYGC.jpg (96KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x640px

The Vietnam era M16 was the most wrongly abused firearm in recent history.

>>33173120

> 10000

That 10,000 number includes helicopters.

USAF fixed wing losses were 2251.

>>33151091
thank you based bren

>>33151235
>sandniggers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Dani

>>33149642

Reading aircraft mishaps logs related to Decimomannu airport

>F-104 crashed due engine ingesting gas from gun
>F-104 crashed due engine ingesting gas from gun
>F-104 crashed due engine ingesting gas from gun

Say what?

Check F-104 problems

Superstall caused by bad AOA neglecting T tail air flow
Crashes caused because aircraft acted differently depending on what was on and what was not as pilots were trained and used to flight with fuel tanks installed on wingtips,but once you flew without fuel tanks on tips you had to be very fucking careful with the stick

Loss of control during banking maneuvers due lack of vertical surfaces on fuselage,partially fixed on ASA by lengthening the fin and adding two more strakes beside it

Sidewinders on the canoe installed beneath the fuselage were not that much clear to be installed due missile exhaust gasses that could cause a flameout or for late launchers not giving enough ground clearance for missiles that could get damage by debris

That stupid ejection system

Engine shutting down due poor airflow with certain AOA

Engine shutting down at take off

MLG getting damage beyond certain speeds after take off which forced pilots to raise it asap and causing more accidents

How did they manage to sell it around the globe ffs

>>33165231
a faulty run of glocks

>>33165430
>spyplane more spooky than something that actually destroys things

>>33165231
FN FNX

>>33157766
Everyone forgets that Russians don't go for KDR, they go for overall victory.
The United States military has had a positive kill to death ratio by a wide margin for the past 100 years.

In that time the only wars they've won have been limited strike operations
The military equivalent of a swat team raiding someone's house
and wars where they were carried by other countries

>we only won cause the Brits were running the show
Yeah, I am implying that.
Even during World War II, the one time the US was fighting on their own was in the pacific theatre, and they got routinely out maneuvered by Japanese generals.
The Japanese knew they were probably fucked at around 10 AM December the 7th 1941, when they realized they didn't kill any carriers.

>>33151091
Spandau fanboys on suicide watch

>>33162154
>I'm not saying Western troops didn't do a good job
They did a good job. But only because it was the exact job they were trained to do.
One of the few fighters less creative and more inflexible than the American is the Arab.

In every conflict the US has been in since Korea, except for desert storm, the opposition changed the terms on which the war was fought, and the US got stomped on a resource to success ratio.

>>33181758
>How did they manage to sell it around the globe ffs

Bribes, proven to be so at least in germany

File: 1280px-AGM-114_Hellfire_hung_on_a_Predator_drone.jpg (260KB, 1280x948px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x948px

>>33181886
Just to add, the greatest modern revolution in how war is fought was the arming of the predator in 2000.
It's proven itself to be exceptionally effective, and it was developed before it was really needed.

However much of the United States military and pretty much the entire public opposes the drone program. Kind of explains why the DOD never comes up with new ideas.

File: fulcrum_vs_flanker_by_ralph1989-d7c7bxs.jpg (34KB, 400x519px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x519px

>>33172018

The Ethiopian-Ertrian war is one I've read about a lot because it's the Su-27's only combat and it bodied the MiG-29.

Worth noting that again, Ertriea had the worst monkey model MuGs you could get (9-12B, doubly downgraded version, no IFF, even Whittier look down radar range, etc)

Most of the kills were claimed to have been made by Russian mercenaries/advisors.

There is no debating that the Su-27 is better than the MiG-29 though. No question about it. The Flanker is the only Soviet fighter with a positive kill record.

I have a theory that Mikoyan and the Fulcrum family fell out of favor with the Russian Air force in small part due to that conflict. They didn't have enough money to support too many types of aircraft after the USSR split. They had actual Russian pilots fight in live combat against MiGs and were like "nigga this plane doodoo"

>>33181886
What a retarded thing to say

File: 317.jpg (42KB, 680x488px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 680x488px

>>33181824
>mfw it gets armed with the only nuclear missiles in a game

File: serveimag.jpg (257KB, 2880x1620px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 2880x1620px

>>33181941
Yever read the art of war, friendo

>>33181837
Dude what? It seems the only maneuvering the Japs did after 42 was literal suicide and leaving garrisons to die

>>33151091
Thank you based Bren