>Battleships are obsolete >Tanks are obsolete >Helicopters are obsolete What's next on the chopping block?
>>56162555That's not a battleship in your picture, that's an all gun light cruiser I think.
>>56162555Fighter jets. Then by extension carriers.
>>56162566Now i want to say you are wrong but...Lets just hope our robot overlords think we will make good pets is all i am saying.
>>56162566Unironically, unmanned fighters and remotely controlled platforms, drones, autonomous vehicles and missiles, etc.. will encompass a lot of future warfare
>>56162555How are helicopters obsolete? Seems like a propaganda post
>>56162607Vodka helicopters and tanks all got rekt in Ukraine. Therefore they are obsolete.It’s some tasty cope.
>>56162607They are very good at getting shot downThis is seen as a bad thing.
>>56162591Sverdlov class, at over 10000 tons it would probably be considered a heavy cruiser, and it was quite "modern" as well, being built post war
>>56162617This is also one of the first wars we've seen where both countries have capable anti-air. Helicopters and non-stealth aircraft are taking it in the teeth.
>>56162617US lost over half its fielded helicopters in Vietnam
>>56162634Russoids can’t into EWAR, there’s ways around this but they’re fighting with the same technology they had in Afghanistan, against the surplus and last generation equipment of NATO. They entered this war under the assumption that they could win it fast enough without the arsenal of the free world being leveraged against them.
>>56162555>Helicopters are obsoleteThey're only obsolete if they don't have MAWS and automatic flare launchers on them and you're flying them in an area where intel has previously informed you that is swarming with MANPADS and AAA.
>>56162592Fighters maybe, carriers definitely not, what platform do you think the drone swarms of the future will be launched and serviced from?>>56162619Judging the performance of any system based on its incompetent usage by hopelessly corrupt Russians is foolish.
>>56162634Close, this is the first conflict where both sides have capable anti air but neither side is capable of widespread SEAD. Hence the midwit takes of >durrhurr helis obsolete
>>56162651Cope more Sergei.
>>56162555The universe itself is obsolete
>>56162651>Hence the midwit takes ofAnd yet the US still remained strong enough to serve as a potent deterrent in Europe, against a Soviet invasion. The only thing keeping Russia from being invaded right now are its nukes.
>>56162651in actual wars (not play "wars" in the sandbox against goat fuckers) military hardware is always lost in large amounts.
>>56162555>What's next on the chopping block?your cockneeds a lot more length to be competitive
>>56162668They sowed the wind, and now, they shall reap the whirlwind.
>>56162555>What's next on the chopping block?having a large navy in general
>>56162633Cruisers are typified by gun caliber; ~6in/152mm being light cruisers and ~8in/203mm being heavy cruisers. Wiki says Sverdlov has 6 in guns so they're light cruisers. Even in displacement they fall around the contemporary Cleveland/Worcester class CL's and displace less than Des Moines class CA's
>>56162651You can blame that on the extensive nature of anti-air assets used by VC and PAVN, and the general fragile nature of helicopters. .30 caliber rifles and machine guns and up can do significant damage
>>56162651>US lost over half its fielded helicopters in VietnamAnd the entire world still uses helicopters fifty years later. Why is this war any different?
>>56162555It's never obseleteNot in our hearts
>>56162555Oh yeah, that's the Russian piece of shit that ran aground during towing outside Norway back in the 90s. Norway built a dry dock around it to dismantle it.
>>56162651How many of those were lost to actual ground fire? Military equipment can be written off for any number of reasons. It's a two way street as well
>>56165084>>56165143>Norway had to go to all this effort to clean up vatnik trash>probably a pain in the ass to dispose of properly because it would be full to the brim of asbestos and toxic garbageAnd I'm willing to bet that Russia didn't pay a penny for it, or if they did it was a token amount that nowhere near covered all the costs.
>>56165143that's some pretty badass engineering
>>56165223I would assume the same thing. We've actually paid them and shared technical expertise with them over the years, mostly to safely clean up hazardous materials or to dismantle old ships that could potentially become an environmental hazard. Still, they treat us like we're their worst enemies, raiding our coast, fishing in our waters, spying on us, taking over or fucking with the Norwegian companies that try to get established in Russia, and of course they practice nuclear bombing runs on our cities.I guess that's what we get for giving them money, sharing expertise, helping them clean up their fucking toxic waste, and saving millions of those subhuman vermin from starvation.
>>56162555Gr8 B8 M8. Tanks and helicopters are not obsolete. However, the need to be used in concert with other assets (combined arms) and using proper doctrine to make up for their weaknesses.
>>56162674>>56162592Drones make fighters more relevant than ever. Accept no substitutes when it comes to swatting pests out of the skies.
>>56162555>cavalry got rekt by pikes since 300BC, proving they were obsolete>pure cavalry army took over most of the world 1500 years after being made obsoleteobsoletebros how can this be happening to us?
>>56165286You too?Finland basically set up the toxic/waste water treatment plant for Leningrad 2011, as Russos were still dumping pure, unprocessed waste water into the sea.
>>56162555>Battleships are obsoleteNever were, they just became cost-inefficient as hell compared to their far more versatile alternative, aircraft carriers. The Russian slava class heavy cruiser is essentially a modern battleship. If the US actually had anyone vaguely resembling a threat in nautical supremacy, they probably would've made a missile battleship of themselves capable of launching long-range anti-ship missiles and bunker busters of a vastly higher caliber and complexity than anything you can fit on a carrier aircraft. They aren't obsolete, they are just utterly unnecessary for the US and impractical for just about anyone else.>Tanks are obsoleteAn armored direct fire platform will never be obsolete, it will just become more risky to use as a breakthrough device, but 90% of tank doctrines not invented by retards don't actually prioritize tanks for that. defensive measures always get overtaken by offensive ones in a matter of years. It literally has been happening since the first Mark 1 tank had its pilots face turned to mush by a perforating 13.2mm round. >Helicopters are obsolete.Stable aerial platforms will never be obsolete for a very, very large variety of reasons.
>>56162555Anything that isn't infantry or artillery is a meme
>>56162607There's no proof0 videos of Ukraine helis being destroyed
>>56165695That's a good point. Battleships aren't obsolete, they're just cost inefficient.
>>56162651>all those responses/k/oping hard as usual. But helicopters, particularly attack helicopters, are very fragile to the point where most countries barely have any inventory compared the amount of multi-role fighter jets that they have.
>>56162651Proof? That sounds like some broke shitUSA too fly to die
>>56165143>that filenameDid a Russian fuck your waifu or something, holy fuck rent free you have to be Eastern European
>>56166103God fuck off, actually fuck off, I'm sick and tired of seeing faggots try to spin someone rightfully getting told off by various people because what they said was so stupid as some kind of win to the moron who posted the stupid shit in the first place.
what's the going rate on surplus "obsolete" battleships, tanks, and helicopters, anon?
>>56162571Based and yorhapilled
>>56166103Ivan, only one "country" ever tried to call its helicopters "flying tanks"
>>56162555>>56162607You still need helicopters for transportation.
>>56162675 How is sneed going to suppress random manpads in random bushes?
>>56165286> We've actually paid them and shared technical expertise with them over the years, mostly to safely clean up hazardous materials or to dismantle old ships that could potentially become an environmental hazard. Was that before or after they sunk that nuclear reactored, rusted through sub in a tow near your coastline when they were trying to tow it while keeping its buoyancy with rusted through tanks built in 1941. K-159
>>56165286 Your kindness is read as weakness in the asiatic proto mongols head for them only slaves appear friendly/kind in front of their masters. If you want them to piss off unironically target and without warning sink those illegals fishers. Vatniks respect show of strength
>>56168338>K-159Huh, hadn't heard of that before, guess I'll go look it up->The poor condition of Russia's fleet of decommissioned nuclear submarines concerned the nearby Baltic and Scandinavian nations, and in mid-2003, five countries made a combined donation of more than US$200 million in support of decommission and disposal of the hulls...K-159 was the 13th hull to be towed.>Because K-159's hull was rusted through in so many places, it was kept afloat by spot-welding large empty tanks to her sides as pontoons. Those tanks, however, were manufactured in the 1940s, were not air-tight, and were no better maintained than the submarine's hull. >On 28 August 2003, K-159 and her pontoons were manned by ten Russian sailors and taken under tow to Polyarny. That crew kept the pontoons pressurized and the submarine hull pumped out, but during the early morning hours of 30 August they encountered a squall that ripped away one of the pontoons. K-159 did not sink immediately, but was clearly in distress. Northern Fleet was notified at 01:20, and Admiral Suchkov arrived at headquarters 20 minutes later. By 03:00 the wreck had sunk in the Barents Sea, 200 metres down, with nine of her crew and most likely 800 kilograms of spent nuclear fuel containing some 5.3 gigabecquerels of radionuclides.WHAT THE FUCK RUSSIA
>>56168414xaxaxa we forced the stupid westerners to bend the knee)))
>>56168414 See? Much faster disposal then your faggy western imperialist "safe" disposal. Did not even have to pay the towing crew on top!
>>56162555>BattleshipsThe basic concept was never made obsolete, it's just fuckhuge ships are unnecessary (and were arguably a stupid idea to begin with, see Jutland) because now the same amount of firepower can be placed on a frigate or cruiser.>TanksHave always been vulnerable to attack by air, have been vulnerable to RPGs since WW2, and have always been logistics heavy.>HelicoptersHave always been light air cavalry, vulnerable to AA.>HURR, WE CAN DESTROY SOMETHING, THEREFORE IT IS OBSOLETESo I guess humans were obsolete the minute a caveman invented a club.
>>56169229Seethe more wojtek
>>56169285the battleship was made obsolete because carriers have much further ranges and can provide their own security through CAPhelicopters are still the only aircraft than can reliably hover for long period of timeseven VTOL capable planes like the harrier and F-35 can only do so from relatively distant bases and would still prefer conventional take-off and landing, helicopters can do so even from makeshift bases set up close to the frontline
>>56166226You have to be mentally deficient to not hate Russians, you pathetic faggot.
>>56170816Okay moron, so why aren’t all ships carriers if they’re so great? Oh right, because it turns out carriers are not “I win” buttons.
>>56170816depends if you consider a surface arsenal ship as a battleship in spirit
>>56171845>Okay moron, so why aren’t all ships carriers if they’re so great?carrier strike group is obviously built entirely around the carrier for both its offensive and defensive power>Oh right, because it turns out carriers are not “I win” buttons.carriers are such a powerful force multiplier that it totally replaced several other ships in rolecruisers were no longer needed for independent action because planes can do that job, you no longer need having a carrier when the enemy does not have a carrier virtually guarantees that you have initiative in any naval engagementthis is very close to being an "i win button"carriers arent the only ship in the navy, but its obvious that the carrier is such a valuable and powerful piece that the other ships have to guard ityour queen in chess is powerful but needs rooks and knights to guard it even if the queen outstrips those pieces in capability