Quote (ownyaah @ Jan 25 2024 11:26am)
1. S200/S300 has worked well against air targets and large missiles, which is what they were designed for. Without S200/S300 ukraine would´ve lost the war in the first weeks, so i wouldn´t make fun of them if i was you considering the vast majority of ukranian AA is still soviet. As for himars, we know that russians have several systems that can and have shot them down. They have been used efficently at times against softly defended targets, and other times have overwhelmed AA for valuable targets, firing large volleys. AA can always be overwhelmed, as both sides have shown many times. Patriots, iris, s500, s400, s300 are not godlike weapons. You watch 1 video and think that is all there is to the world.
As for himars, russians have plenty of similar weapon systems, and they have been used in the same way ukranians have used himars. Tornado-S. etc These are expensive ammunitions, there is a reason they are being used so sparsely. Ukraine is also a large country, it is impossible to saturate the entire frontline with AA without having tons of weak spots, or dynamic movement giving opportunities.
2. Tank discussion has been had 100 times. If leos were so godlike super human weapons, the offensive wouldn´t have stalled and failed after 5 villages. There is many factors that come into play besides survivability.
3. Russians haven´t achieved air-supremacy because AA turns out is potent in competent hands, even S200s can turn an area into low-altitude safe. This is why the war is turning into drone&glide bombs&artillery based.
4. Your way of speaking is that of a child, has nothing to do with dodging.
The attrition point you make is resonable, but im not sure if it applies to ukranian situation, which tanks they get is less important than having more tanks. I dont remember last time of tanks being supplied to ukraine.
Quote (ownyaah @ Jan 25 2024 11:26am)
1. S200/S300 has worked well against air targets and large missiles, which is what they were designed for. Without S200/S300 ukraine would´ve lost the war in the first weeks, so i wouldn´t make fun of them if i was you considering the vast majority of ukranian AA is still soviet. As for himars, we know that russians have several systems that can and have shot them down. They have been used efficently at times against softly defended targets, and other times have overwhelmed AA for valuable targets, firing large volleys. AA can always be overwhelmed, as both sides have shown many times. Patriots, iris, s500, s400, s300 are not godlike weapons. You watch 1 video and think that is all there is to the world.
As for himars, russians have plenty of similar weapon systems, and they have been used in the same way ukranians have used himars. Tornado-S. etc These are expensive ammunitions, there is a reason they are being used so sparsely. Ukraine is also a large country, it is impossible to saturate the entire frontline with AA without having tons of weak spots, or dynamic movement giving opportunities.
2. Tank discussion has been had 100 times. If leos were so godlike super human weapons, the offensive wouldn´t have stalled and failed after 5 villages. There is many factors that come into play besides survivability.
3. Russians haven´t achieved air-supremacy because AA turns out is potent in competent hands, even S200s can turn an area into low-altitude safe. This is why the war is turning into drone&glide bombs&artillery based.
4. Your way of speaking is that of a child, has nothing to do with dodging.
.
1. Everysingle aa system Russia has is simply not as good as any modern western version. It's the main reason why Russia developed the tos2a, to compete in mobile aa systems. I'm well aware of the fact that ukraine uses outdated soviet gear. The fact remains that western supplied aa systems is the main reason why Russia hasn't achieved air superiority after 2 years.
2. There's only a handful of leos and all Challys and Abrahams have to stay in the rear. Crew protection is literally the most important thing about a MBT and leos have proven to be excellent at this, especially when compared to the t72/90.
3.you are correct
4. Name calling aside, I'm glad that you were able to put out a thoughtful response regarding military assets in the war. It's better when you can articulate your arguements instead of outright dismissing a post