- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia Faces High Demand for Su-34, Su-35 Jets After Success in Syria
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:05 pm to RedRifle
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:05 pm to RedRifle
And would get blown out of the sky by the eurofighter or several boeing fighters... now please, suck more Russian dick.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 10:06 pm
0
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:10 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
Don't let Darth see your post. He will explain to you that the US spends millions on hammers and screw drivers and our spending does not equate to military dominance.
When have I ever said our hardware and equipment was anything other than heads and shoulders above what the Russians have? Our tanks are better, or artillery is better, our attack helicopters are better, and our fighters & bombers are all better.,
But don't underestimate the Russians. In the past decade they've built up and modernized their armed forces. They arena dangerous for and a growing threat. Anyone who can't see that is a fool or just refuses to see the real world situation.,We still hold a quality advantage though. Our main problem is not one of quality, rather concentration of forces.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:16 pm to olemc999
quote:
The AK47 disagrees.
The AK kind of proves the point, actually. It's extremely durable, but other than that, virtually any Western line rifle is heads and shoulders better than it. It is designed for ill-trained and undisciplined soldiers.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:23 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The AK kind of proves the point, actually. It's extremely durable, but other than that, virtually any Western line rifle is heads and shoulders better than it. It is designed for ill-trained and undisciplined soldiers.
As long as you're not trying to hit anything too far away, it's not bad. Accuracy is it's main drawback.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:25 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
As long as you're not trying to hit anything too far away, it's not bad. Accuracy is it's main drawback.
It was a weak analogy to begin with.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:41 pm to RogerTheShrubber
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:41 pm to RedRifle
quote:
Su-34, Su-35
Dat radioactive decay
Posted on 4/5/16 at 10:42 pm to The Baker
quote:
They aren't showing off, they're working out the kinks vs the western equipment in Syria.
What?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 11:03 pm to Darth_Vader
From Wikipedia's article comparing the Ak47 to the M16:
quote:
"In Fallujah, Marines with ACOG-equipped M16A4s created a stir by taking so many head shots that until the wounds were closely examined, some observers thought the insurgents had been executed."
Posted on 4/5/16 at 11:53 pm to tiger20009
The AK-74. Came about to challenge the range of the US arms.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:00 am to RedRifle
Let other countries buy as many as they want. I think America should keep its superior technology to itself and maybe our most trusted allies getting it when needed.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 12:11 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
As long as you're not trying to hit anything too far away, it's not bad. Accuracy is it's main drawback
I'd much rather get hit with an AK round than an M16/M4 round. Goddamn, I have seen some ugly arse wounds from FN weapons.
The trauma profiles are just so dramatically different between the two.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 1:08 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Accuracy is it's main drawback.
That's kind of the point of a rifle built for war isn't it? Accuracy. The AK is a great weapon because you can bury it in a swamp, dig it up & fire it. You won't hit anything past 100-150M but it will fire.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 3:19 am to Cdawg
quote:Don't come up in here with these fricking facts - you will ruin Putin's manly ways.
Russia falls to 4th place in military spending.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 3:20 am to upgrayedd
quote:or a F-89 Sabre jet from Podunk Natty Guard.
Those same missions could have been accomplished with an F-4. All they did was bomb targets with no advanced anti aircraft defense or air to air opposition.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 3:32 am to RedRifle
the F-22 would run laps around these things as well as the 15,16 and 18.
And its got nothing on the king of CAS the A-10.
And its got nothing on the king of CAS the A-10.
This post was edited on 4/6/16 at 3:34 am
Posted on 4/6/16 at 3:36 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The AK kind of proves the point, actually. It's extremely durable, but other than that, virtually any Western line rifle is heads and shoulders better than it. It is designed for ill-trained and undisciplined soldiers.
bingo
its a durable cheaply made rifle that's easy to scrap parts to put together. Perfect to the pray and spay types.
Posted on 4/6/16 at 6:31 am to jonboy
quote:
That's kind of the point of a rifle built for war isn't it? Accuracy. The AK is a great weapon because you can bury it in a swamp, dig it up & fire it. You won't hit anything past 100-150M but it will fire.
You're right, from the US and western point of view. We spend far more time training our riflemen in accurate long-range rife fire than have the Russians historically. The Russians style of infantry war fighting calls for more of a close quarters style of fighting where volume of fire is more important than long range accurate rifle fire. In their thinking, the only soldiers who train for long range fire are their snipers.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News