₦airaland Forum

DonBobes:
russian equipments r cheaper bt nt strong wen compared to american equipments. Jst imagine d Abraham tank against two russian T72 tanks durin d 1st gulf war dey culdnt knock off its Turret in a frontal attack even wen dey manovred bhind d US tank d russin tanks only created holes in d tank and stil culd NOT knock it off.infact dis is d only recorded incidence n damage dt a russian t72 as done to an american tank. Til date d Abraham tanks stil tak out d russian tanks any day.

McTobe:
well u have the right to your own opinion but saying that Russia can't compete with USAF is a fallacy and u know it. if we are to go by military hardwares Russians are better, since we the two sides have not been on a face on collision in a major war we can't judge for sure the morale of their fighting forces but as far as hardware is concern US will keep wondering.

pacino26:
My brother see me see lecturer but make I tell am cuz he had G in English lang



Omg, you just graduated top of your class in war history in your dream world.

What I meant there is no one thought the Russians could deploy it with such accuracy on more than half in contrast to the USA.

Thanks PROF

Mcbussy:
So what would u count having bases and troops in almost all continents as?... Isnt it a strategic advantage?...Do u think war is just about deploying ur men to take ships from Russia to US?... They'll all get blown away b4 they even reach half way. But with the present day situation, US can even drop men on Russian soil without them even knowing when, where and how. Men fight wars, strategies and resources win wars.

Talking about Russia manufacturing better hardwares at 1/3 the amount it costs US. How many Russian design military hardwares do u know that are superior to American hardwares?... Even the Russian AK47/AK74 assault rifles are terrible when compared to the M4/M16. Yes, it has better stopping power on impact, but of what good is the stopping power when about 4 out of 5 rounds fired misses it's moving target at about 100m?... Well, maybe they now have a better and more modern assault rifle sha.

US has the best Naval hardwares. They have better ships, more Aircraft carriers than other countries. Their attach helicopter; Apaches are far more sophisticated than Russian Mi24s. I think Russia has some very competent fighter jets though.

DonBobes:
russian equipments r cheaper bt nt strong wen compared to american equipments. Jst imagine d Abraham tank against two russian T72 tanks durin d 1st gulf war dey culdnt knock off its Turret in a frontal attack even wen dey manovred bhind d US tank d russin tanks only created holes in d tank and stil culd NOT knock it off.infact dis is d only recorded incidence n damage dt a russian t72 as done to an american tank. Til date d Abraham tanks stil tak out d russian tanks any day.

Rotimi47:
You're the super novice, one is talking about cruise missiles and you're talking generally about all missiles. Na wa for some people.

You know nothing about weapons or weapon platforms, let me state that the missile with the longest range in the world is owned by Russia.

Missy89:
Tell them! . Battle of the 73 Easting and Medina Ridge comes to mind. The Abrams were harvesting T72s like oranges on the battlefield.

Shymm3x:
Loool.
I mean the type that will take ya chic, back her arse up, give her the Mutombo, and hand her back to you afterwards like a boss lol.
Only monkeys are used as lab rats and you'd be a perfect fit for testing why evolution eluded certain villages in Africa lol.
I see ya ignorant arse is yet to answer the questions I asked you, after gallivanting with itchy fingers like rabid dog.

Mcbussy:
*yawns* bed time... Some of us have real jobs and not virtual wealth

Yanks101:
T-72 is crap.
The russians will not use it in any modern warfare with america. They are not that stupidd.
The T-90 though is awesome.

Missy89:
Tell them! . Battle of the 73 Easting and Medina Ridge comes to mind. The Abrams were harvesting T72s like oranges on the battlefield.

mazeltov:
tanks? Please have you heard about Armata tank? Please try and make research about Russian Armata tank

Missy89:
Russian ground forces have more t80s / t72s than t90s. Over 50 percent of Russian tank forces and reserves are t72s

Missy89:
Russian ground forces have more t80s / t72s than t90s. Over 50 percent of Russian tank forces and reserves are t72s

Yanks101:
T-90 is undergoing rapid production.
The russians are gradually phasing out t-72.

neocortex:
That comment is a political one, elections are coming
up and the army-industrial complex want to set a tone
for increase military spending.

dinachi:
Backward russia? Are you kidding me? Remove your head from Obamas arse right now! You have eaten enough shit already!

Mcbussy:
*yawns* bed time... Some of us have real jobs and not virtual wealth

Missy89:
How is it a fallacy when it wasn't just a blank statement. I gave you examples. One has a modern strategic bomber and is building a new one. The other is still stuck with propeller bear bombers. One have developed her 5th gen fighter for over a decade the other is still testing prototypes.

When you can compete, you up the stakes. If you can't, you deny the enemy access. So which one is the Russian air force doing?

mach7:
As regards your bashing of Russia's T72 tank, I can only shake my head. Most Iraqi tank losses in desert one were taken out by airstrikes from Apaches and not by direct tank fire from Abrams tank. Research well and stop watching western influenced Discovery World documentaries. A tank is simply as good as its operator(s).

Missy89:
Who are the allies of Russia?

Shymm3x:
Ha.


Most of you kids can barely spell and constructing proper sentences is foreign to you lot. Yet you jump from thread to thread, talking about things you know nothing about. I'm not even in the military, but I can post where all US military bases are on the map and also show the movement of all US aircraft carriers in real time - with the internet. Now imagine what a country like Russia would do in a real war, with the top-2 satellite/space technology in the world and the best missile technology in world and thousands of nuclear warheads - that monitors everything. You think they'll allow the US take the initiative, in a shooting match, by leaving all those bases alone - when they can easily obliterate everything within 24 hours with the thousands of hypersonic missiles they have, no? How will the US defend against those missiles - the utter vulnerable Aegis radar and patriot missiles, no? - hysterical.

Also, when did Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Germany become pro-US? Just because they're part of NATO, due to the fall out of the 2nd world war, that doesn't mean care about the US. Heck, even France doesn't care too tough - Chirac showed that openly during the Iraq invasion. Let the US go get involved in a big war with a super power and let's see if all these countries won't back out of the war and play both sides like the US did during the 2nd world war for three years. Nobody has the stomach for another big war in Europe after two devastating world wars - that's when you'll know that NATO only exist on paper. Countries are going to protect their interests and move out of the way...no one wants to be the collateral damage for missiles. Even the UK will move out of the way cos I doubt the House of Commons will vote for any war

mach7:
Missy89, I have been observing your posts and reading comments but I think I need to clear a few points. The purpose of the bear bomber has revolutionalized. It is a standoff weapons platform from which Kh55 nuclear tipped or conventional missiles can be fired onto continental USA from about a 1000 miles of the coast. Furthermore there are different categories of Bears, as they range from A-H.

Bear D is super powerful and is used to penetrate air defences even sophisticated ones because while it is noisy, Its special coating makes it difficult to locate on radar. Most interceptions of bears by NATO aircraft used visual confirmation. the bear F is a reconnaissance platform while the bear C is an early warning platform. Also, I laughed at your description of the Tu-160. Do you know why it is called a blackjack? The Tu-160 is an ace that can penetrate US airspace. it was the golden weapon of the USSR and is why Russia wants to continue its production. As I said earlier stop reading Stratfor or National Interest or other CIA mouthpieces who glorify the performance of US war assets against weaker opponents. Russian aircraft are powerful when used appropriately and will match their US made. opponents any day. Before you make comparisons about aircrafts, check out their specs for better info.

You spoke about the F22 raptor and I want to challenge you to point out a single conflict where it has been successful used and I will applaud you. Be informed that the direct competitor of the raptor is the Su35 (which is active in Russia's airforce) and not the PAK FA as you ignorantly opined - it is built to compete with the F35 which is equally under development. As regards your bashing of Russia's T72 tank, I can only shake my head. Most Iraqi tank losses in desert one were taken out by airstrikes from Apaches and not by direct tank fire from Abrams tank. Research well and stop watching western influenced Discovery World documentaries. A tank is simply as good as its operator(s). Lastly, pls it wasn't the US that saved USSR from Germany's operation Barbarossa, it was a combination of snow, poor logistics, Hitler's pride and the sheer land mass involved coupled with guerilla warfare from Russian and Polish patriots that turned the tide. The Normandy beach landing took place in 1944 after the Soviet Union began pushing the Germans back. Furthermore note that upon Hitler's invasion, all war material and assets were moved back from the frontline to Omsk beyond the Ural mountains as a strategic decision to prepare for a counter offensive once the Russian winter set in. You are good dear, but you need to research more and learn your history properly.

mach7:
Missy89, I have been observing your posts and reading comments but I think I need to clear a few points. The purpose of the bear bomber has revolutionalized. It is a standoff weapons platform from which Kh55 nuclear tipped or conventional missiles can be fired onto continental USA from about a 1000 miles of the coast. Furthermore there are different categories of Bears, as they range from A-H. Bear D is super powerful and is used to penetrate air defences even sophisticated ones because while it is noisy, Its special coating makes it difficult to locate on radar. Most interceptions of bears by NATO aircraft used visual confirmation. the bear F is a reconnaissance platform while the bear C is an early warning platform. Also, I laughed at your description of the Tu-160. Do you know why it is called a blackjack? The Tu-160 is an ace that can penetrate US airspace. it was the golden weapon of the USSR and is why Russia wants to continue its production. As I said earlier stop reading Stratfor or National Interest or other CIA mouthpieces who glorify the performance of US war assets against weaker opponents. Russian aircraft are powerful when used appropriately and will match their US made. opponents any day. Before you make comparisons about aircrafts, check out their specs for better info. You spoke about the F22 raptor and I want to challenge you to point out a single conflict where it has been successful used and I will applaud you. Be informed that the direct competitor of the raptor is the Su35 (which is active in Russia's airforce) and not the PAK FA as you ignorant ly opined - it is built to compete with the F35 which is equally under development. As regards your bashing of Russia's T72 tank, I can only shake my head. Most Iraqi tank losses in desert one were taken out by airstrikes from Apaches and not by direct tank fire from Abrams tank. Research well and stop watching western influenced Discovery World documentaries. A tank is simply as good as its operator(s). Lastly, pls it wasn't the US that saved USSR from Germany's operation Barbarossa, it was a combination of snow, poor logistics, Hitler's pride and the sheer land mass involved coupled with guerilla warfare from Russian and Polish patriots that turned the tide. The Normandy beach landing took place in 1944 after the Soviet Union began pushing the Germans back. Furthermore note that upon Hitler's invasion, all war material and assets were moved back from the frontline to Omsk beyond the Ural mountains as a strategic decision to prepare for a counter offensive once the Russian winter set in. You are good dear, but you need to research more and learn your history properly.

mazeltov:
I'm sorry but I need to tell you that this is not a point. Any missile fired always come with locked target and it all depends on the range of the missile. Even South Africa can fire missile and it will hit its target. Any missile can hit its target and any missile can be brought down - well that depends on the sophistication of air defence too

Mcbussy:
Well that's why we don't want any war...lol.

Many of the clowns shouting Putin here would rather fight for America when they hear "green card"

Quelme:
FYI, those missiles were fired from a smaller vessel when compared to that of the US, who thought it was possible.? The west never saw that coming by any stretch of their imagination... The Russians don't need to spend so much money to get those state of the heart weaponry...

Tkester:
Bro thanks for your academic answers and reply to devilish propagandas.

That girl you quoted is filled with lies and mishevious propaganda, she's out to deceive people and re-write history. Ever since the Russians (Putin) stunned the world in Syria and succeeded in kicking Americas butt , she's been running amok on every Russian thread trying to create confusion and misrepresent facts. Thanks for calling her out.

989900:
'Too much' misconceptions!

Russians can't even build durable cars -- have anyone seen a 'Lada' lately?

Missy89:
Pootine drove the new Lada Vesta few weeks ago. At least the car moved this time unlike the embarrassment few years ago.