Are we getting worse results though? How are you determining that? Russia has always gone for the volume strategy in basically everything. It's basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.

The US has gone for high tech and precision. Costs much more, much lower production, but generally better results.

Also Russia is in a "hot" war with Ukraine and of course will be well into mass producing shells to use etc. Seeing as the US is barely passing measures to send aid to Ukraine, there isn't going to be an appetite to ramp up that production.

Look to world war 2 for an example of how the US can go from no real military might to okay you touched our fucking boats, now we end you.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 36 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Are we getting worse results though?

NATO is spending 15 times more money to produce fewer munitions than Russia, and those munitions are not fifteen times as effective. Ukraine has not been able to make any significant changes in their frontline because they can only fire a fraction of the shells that Russia can and the imbalance is tipping further into Russia's direction.

Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.

It's basically the zap brannigan special of throwing meat into the grinder until it clogs using cheap, mass produced crap.

Every modern war between peers has been a test of one sides productive ability against the other's. The US won WWII, and forced a stalemate in Korea because it had enormously more industrial power, and could afford to spend equipment instead of lives.

[–] meepster23@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

those munitions are not fifteen times as effective

By what metric are you basing this off of? What's your evidence? The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.

https://lexingtoninstitute.org/the-f-35-is-the-safest-and-most-capable-fighter-the-u-s-military-has/#:~:text=In%20recent%20Red%20Flag%20aerial,improved%20their%20scores%20as%20well.

Of course it's gonna be difficult or impossible to say how it would fair head to head against Russian fighters, but again, if Russia has these, why aren't they in use and how is Ukraine giving them such trouble?

Precision is important, but ultimately having cheap unreliable ammunition is better than having no ammunition.

I mean, duh? But that's not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.

Small arms advantage guess to bulk as failures aren't catastrophic and the whole accuracy by volume thing is real.

Missiles, artillery etc? I'd say the advantage is probably soundly in the higher tech end because it makes it exponentially more effective.

Ukraine has been holding off Russia for how long now with leftover scraps from Western countries?

[–] TechnoUnionTypeBeat@hexbear.net 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.

According to what, the fever dreams of some MIC thinktank writer? It's never seen combat against a peer force. Acting as if it's some god-like wunderwaffen when it's been nothing but a MIC grift for decades is the purest of copium, especially as we're seeing other Western wunderwaffen get absolutely spanked in Ukraine right now - even the so called invincible M1 Abrams and Challengers are getting wrecked at alarming rates

Remember that the F-117 was considered the best stealth fighter around, a revolutionary new plane that would change warfare, invisible and unstoppable - and then it got shot down by an out of date export variant AA missile in Serbia who watched the thing on radar the whole time

[–] blame@hexbear.net 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But that's not the argument, the argument is over is cheap unreliable ammo in bulk better than expensive reliable ammo in smaller quantities.

Is the NATO stuff more reliable or just more expensive and rare? I think the reliability argument is just cope. There are articles kicking around about ukrainians complaining that the abrams tanks are not reliable because they need frequent maintenance. There's this article talking about vehicles Canada donated being bad at offroading. I would like to see evidence that the assertion that NATO stuff is more reliable is actually true.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there

teenager who still reads Air Force ROTC Quarterly back issues his older brother left when he went to college

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.

Which capability has never been needed in teh forty years since the design of the plane began.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The f35 is an over priced money pit, but it will dry hump every other jet in existence into the ground before they even know they are there.

Barring any wild and outlandish contingencies such as rain

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (43 replies)