Total artillery genocide is non-negotiable.>Dat CEP doe
>>59584484Hot damn
Holy shit
>>59584484That poor fucker who knows he's next, gets out and is about to run but then blows up. Bet he heard it coming too and all he could do was pray it's a miss.
>>59584484imagine being that guy. >Oh shit >get out run run run run>Holy smokes, barely dodged the second hitthen you get absolutely erased from reality by the third hit. but all the hits look off by the same amount, so it was probably a positional error when the targets were spotted.
Beautiful.
>>59584484>Draw a tank>Call it a artilleryI hate it
Ohh the second guy almost made it.
the soldier was a decoy
>>59584537Consider all of the shit which the artillery was going to blow up, but couldn't, because it got blown up first.
>>59584484They are deleting 20-40 A DAY. No way that Russia is producing that many howitzers per day to keep up. How much longer can they possibly last? How many rusted tanks and artillery pieces can they drag from the mainland?
>>59584537>our equipment is worthless>our men are expendable>therefore every Puccian loss is a victory because we are worthless and American rockets are notthis is by far, the strangest Russian cope I've seen
>>59584484>little Vanya is trying to run, but...
>>59584529That's a mortar tank.
>>59584537Those are 2S9 Nona-S Self propelled 120mm mortars. and thats an excellent trade for 3 missiles.
>>59584537Bait.
>>59584537>two shitty bmpshook's a bit too large amigo
>>59584537>no ammo dumps in 70km radius>no AA in 70km radius>no arty in 70km radiusBy the time ukies recieve ATACMS they will be targeting single soldiers.
>>59584588It's kind of cute actually. The compact car of mobile artillery.
>>59584606>By the time ukies recieve ATACMS they will be targeting single soldiers.in moscow
>>59584513>>59584537>3rd hit>3 rocketsThe second one is a replay of the first, retards
>>59584484>Ukrop using Yautja technologyInterplanatary war crime
>>59584606>>59584635They have good range. Ukraine produces so few Neptunes, you wonder why are they wasting so many in such a short time? The reason is that ATCAMS will replace them so they are spending them. There's soooo many targets in Zap and Crimea they can take out. And it can relieve pressure on the MiGs firing cruise missiles.
>>59584588Imagine a battalion of those paired with Wiesels.
>>59584537Kek one human if you can call it even human fucking Untermensch in Russia, is more valuable than one rocket, even when the thing is more useful than one zigger.
I'm seeing some spicy explosions on tik tok. What did the ukies hit in donetsk?
>>59584641>wasting so manyThey've been used to destroy S400 and that's it. And even if they launched 8 rockets to destroy it (they probably didn't), it still would be worth it, not like russians are planning to launch an amphibian assault any time soon.
>>59584581It's been their cope since the 80s.Our politofficer used to tell us fairy tales about overpriced NATO junk forgetting to mention how much of that cost is just salaries for the factory workers.Then again, the talking point were a little different then, perhaps a little bit more honest>USA is very lazy country, they spend too much of welfare, their standard of life is too high
>>59584484What is this cardboard box?
>>59584641>wastingif I hear this word one more time I'll have aneurysm
>>59584569The fact of the matter is, we don't know. The old saying "Russia is an artillery based army, with a lot of tanks" rings pretty true. Theres estimates Russia sent somewhere around 4000 to Ukraine, the actual composition, how many lost to wear, and how many destroyed is intentionally left vague
>>59584816Wasting. Heh, tough luck Amice
>>59584679DPR administration building according to WarGonzo via wartranslatedhttps://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1703747321370939794
>>59584807cubes
>>59584581kinda like how spending expensive missile to intercept some drone or crusie missile is a bad trade because lets just ignore the cost of whatever that thing was goign to hit otherwise
>>59584848HIMARS rocket is not more expensive than fucking 120mm self propelled mortar with it's fucking crew you fucking retarded moron
I wonder if avarage zigger actually believes muh 6 billion HIMARS destroyed, 100% GMLRS intercepted, nothing to fear comrade))) propaganda.It must be fucking hilarious if they actually do as it implies that HIMARS is literally crushing ziggers souls.They witness the vehicle in front of the getting obliterated and have few seconds to process the fact that puccian superiority they believed their whole life is fucking lie, they've been deliberately feed.
>>59584862>Best not think about it comrade. Keep it to yourself. Don't be a nuisance. Just keep going.That's their mindset. Many know, and have doubts but the system and culture won't let them express it. Make no mistake, if Putin dies suddenly every Russian will say how bad he is and then pretend nothing else is wrong.
>>59584834Nice thanks
>>59584658>that picTruly a weapon to surpass metal gear.
>>59584862>I wonder if avarage zigger actually believes muh 6 billion HIMARS destroyed, 100% GMLRS intercepted, nothing to fear comrade))) propaganda.They don't think about that at all. They're happy with Ukrainian civillians dying and that makes it all worth it.
>>59584906
>>59584807Optimized for cube transport
>>59584848>lets just ignore the cost of whatever that thing was goign to hit otherwiseThe cost of what it was going to hit does justify an expensive missile killing a cheap drone. Thats not what people are talking about (hopefully) when they say its a waste. You need to find a cheap replacement since they probably have more cheap drones than you have expensive missiles. It's about the long term, not the individual uses.
>>59584848this is a tired and terrible argumentit IS a bad trade, IF you're fighting an enemy of equal mightin this case it's not, because Russia has 1/12th the GDP of the USA alone, and 1/10th the GDP of the European Union besides; add Canada and UK to the list and Russia has 1/25th the GDP of its enemiesTHAT is why we can afford to spend expensive ordnance on cheaper targets
>>59584510I think the guy could have lived if he was a second or two faster, would put the entire vehicle hull between him and the explosion
>>59584951Shockwave would still turn his organs to mush
>>59584537I think the "third" explosion on the second vehicle may be ammunition cook off, looks different and is spot on where the tin can was.
>>59584967I don't think there was a third explosion. They showed each explosion twice.
>>59584513>>59584967>what is instant replayThere are only two hits and two explosions for fucks sake
>>59584537ARTILLERY KNOWS NEITHER FRIEND NOR FOE, ONLY TARGETSYou call us - we deliver death and destruction. 24/7, any day, any weather. We are the only ones on the battlefield who kill 'em all. You want flares? Got assholes in the wire? Tank masses in front of you? Got ambushed? Give us a call and proper coordinates. There's nothing we cannot stop. There's nothing we cannot destroy. Give is the coordinates and we blow s*tan himself out of his hottest pot. We. Are. Artillery. We are the mighty King Of Battle. We are the punishing fist thar crushes all those who are not worthy enough. And thanks to Saint Edward, the Teller, we even nuclear destruction even if we "only" got 155 Mike-Mike guns.We gonna fuck you up son!
da is bad in russian army but everywhere else is bad too so why care if thousands of russians die every month)))))))
>>59584950Few of the weapons are new, and most are slated for some kind of disposal as well. ie it's cheaper to let Ukraine use them than to actually dispose of them ourselves. They'll also do crazy things we can't due to safety regulations, like take a buzzsaw to a cluster munition, remove the individual clusters, then load them into UAV to create UAV shotguns deleting mobik skulls.There's so much cluster ammo it's like whatever, knock yourselves out.
>>59585001>most are slated for some kind of disposal as wellAlso not a good argument. Let me give you my British-centric take on the situation: Storm Shadow cost about £800k unit price, not counting R&D. They would almost certainly cost 3 to 4 times that today. Any weapons expended must be replaced for a nation to retain equal defence capability moving forward. So no, while their eventual expenditure on an enemy target or on a firing range was to be expected, it's not actually "cheaper".Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting the war, but we can't delude ourselves about the costs either.>They'll also do crazy things we can't due to safety regulationsTrue.
>>59584973That zoom in confused me.
>>59584537HOW DO YOU LIKE MY FACE TO FIST STYLE
>>59584950>it IS a bad trade, IF you're fighting an enemy of equal mightin what world?
>>59585113In a world where mathematics and logic still reigns?It's dead simple; you have 100 billion dollars, your opponent has 100 billion dollars; if you can kill his 1 million dollar missile with your 1 thousand dollar missile, guess who runs out of money first?
>>59585041>>59585041>on a firing rangeduuude you are NOT firing hundreds or thousands of cruise missiles on a firing range. This isn't some simple artillery shell. There's tons of both safety and national security regulations for the proper dismantling and disposal of these systems that is time consuming and costly. There's also not enough firing ranges in NATO countries to fire all of this all the time. You'd need something, like, say, a giant war between Russia and Ukraine to expend them all.Yes, it IS hceaper to just ship these to Ukraine to let them use them to dispose of them "the right way".>Also not a good argument. Let me give you my British-centric take on the situation: Storm Shadow cost about £800k unit price, not counting R&D. They would almost certainly cost 3 to 4 times that today.The Storm Shadow and its replacement have already been paid for. That money is gone already. Whether it's used in Ukraine or not is irrelevant. It doesn't cost us that much. It's mostly just shipping and training.
>>59584537>don't engage your enemy until your accountant has gone over the numbers>he discovered that building Wile-E-Coyote holes in front of the enemy tanks was the most effective option (based on cost)>they will be dug with a soldiers bare hands because that will save even more money
>>59585102Who's laughing now??? *squeak squeak*
>>59585136you forget the part where YOUR 1 thousand dollar missile blew up 90 million dollar plane
>>59585136You are an absolute retard
>>59585138>You'd need something, like, say, a giant war between Russia and Ukraine to expend them allWe bought about a thousand Storm Shadows (that we know of) and it's a 90s weapon. Even using just thirty weapons a year - easily done in various NATO and US exercises - stocks would be near zero by now.(I'm not saying this is the case, I'm giving a purely notional example.)So no, it is quite feasible.>its replacement have already been paid forYou know this, or you guess?>It doesn't cost us that muchIt does. I gave you the unit price of the weapon. Add inflation and the replacement cost will be what I estimated, possibly more. For comparison, the Tomahawk is a bit more than 3 million in today's US dollars.
>>59585215No answer?Thought so.>>59585193I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm describing a purely notional mathematical example.
>>59584537It's 3 rockets, it's not like they kamikaze'd the HIMARS launcher into your positions. This war is like listening to the shitty kid at the sleepover cry that people shot at him in multiplayer Halo.
>>59585136Good thing then that the modern world doesn't work like that. Cost accounting is incredibly reductionist when it comes to military targets like 2x Nonas for the "price" of 2x HIMARS rockets. Your reductionist example "where mathematics and logic still reigns" is incredibly retarded.
>>59585318Cost accounting in military terms is absolutely relevant as it directly impacts the size of the army a state can field, all else being equal. It is a key facet of materiel production which is in turn a key facet of logistics. It is NOT "incredibly retarded", this is a recognised principle of governance that dates back to the Middle Ages. Also, the example being discussed was missiles and anti-missile missiles, where it becomes even more relevant.Modern Americans are very comfortable with their massive GDP advantage to the point of not really grasping the dollars and cents of defence. This was not always the case, not when the Soviet economy and the Nazi economy appeared to be able to produce more weapons than contemporaneous American production. Those hard-won lessons need to be remembered, because future threats will not always be opposing the USA at a 10:1 budgetary disadvantage.
>>59585362Cost accounting becomes useful when one is examining strategic things. Yes, it might be worth it to do a thought excercise where the russhits shoot 10 gorillion 1k$ chimpout missiles and Ukies use 100k$ Iris-T missiles to shoot them down. However, this ignores many rather simple things such as money supply not being static, there being costs involved in a civilian human death as that human is a unit of production and source of new humans, economic cost of material destruction and so on and so on. Suddenly the missile trade doesn't look so bad, does it?
>>59584537this aint warcraft where you can trade units 1:1 lmfao whats wrong with you incels
>>59585243Not that anon but:>You know this, or you guess?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile>Add inflation and the replacement cost will be what I estimated, possibly more.But we aren't replacing HIMARS ammo with equivalents, we're replacing them with modern alternatives, so we don't get to act like inflation and replacement cost matter for the original ammo. We were going to replace them with PrSM anyway, which means its always going to cost some different amount based on current prices of the new design.
>>59584807Big Boss in disguise
>>59585398The missile trade isn't bad if it accomplishes a higher goal, e.g. winning the war.The economics of war is a highly-overlooked aspect of defence planning however, despite being absolutely crucial, and frankly many questions for example about why OECD countries downsize their armies, or relax recruitment standards, or make certain purchasing decisions, or fight with a certain doctrine, can really be answered very simply by looking at the economic view.>money supply not being staticGDP is not money supply, but I get what you mean.No it's not, but that is why recognising the cost implications of war is important; it informs our defence budgeting decision-making.>a thought excercise where the russhits shoot 10 gorillion 1k$ chimpout missiles and Ukies use 100k$ Iris-T missiles to shoot them downSaturation attacks are very real and so is their strategic implications.Consider for example how any single European country might defend against a concerted ballistic missile blitz without US assistance.>>59585511Storm Shadow isn't PrSM.The future British air-launched cruise missile programme is Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon which is supposed to be introduced by 2030 (fingers crossed) and hasn't been chosen yet.>we don't get to act like inflation and replacement cost matter for the original ammoI was just giving a guideline price for the replacement weapon.Which should in fact be MORE expensive, because as I said, I had not factored in R&D costs. Also it will have more capability - such as electronic counter-counter-measures and greater moving-target capability - so again it will be more costly.We're likely to buy PrSM but for the Royal Artillery's M270 MLRS, which is already bought by the way.
>>59584537>senseisthe filter is senpai, newfag. Apply yourself
please stop before the gloves come off and the eyebrow rises the ass wont be pretty...
>>59584513>barely dodged the second hitanon...
>>59585832>Shitskin account>2 day old videoOof
>>59584950Better to let a $3000 drone destroy a $10,000,000 tank than to fire a $250,000 missile at it. Because 3000<250,000
>>59586046>it's perfectly okay to destroy a $3,000 drone with a $250,000 missile, we'll never run out of missiles before they run out of drones
>>59585511PrSM is replacing ATACMS, not GMLRS
>>59585832>IMARAT DONBASS. In the vicinity of the village of al-Makhsul, the mujahideen of the Russian Caliphate conducted a hinzirorez, during which Allah instilled terror in the hearts of the Salopo worshippers and they fled from the battlefield. Praise be to Allah>the mujahideen of the Russian Caliphate>Russian Caliphate
>>59586056The alternative is you lose a much more expensive tank.
>>59586072GreatSo your enemy will just keep throwing $3,000 drones at your tank until you run out of $250,000 missiles, and then go on to wipe the rest of your army
>>59586095How do you not understand that the alternative is letting the enemy destroy your army right away?
>>59586109How do you not understand that you're only delaying the inevitable?The alternative is coming up with a cost-effective solution, whatever it may be.
>>59584484Can't wait to go battlefield tourist when this war is over.See the destroyed hulls AND be able to watch the strike that caused it on video will be immersive as hell.
>>59584950Remember when people here were saying Shahed drones literally could not be countered for mathematical reasons and would inevitably win the war for Russia?
>>59586095How is it related to the current battlefield?>defend target at the high cost>leave valuable assets in place>don't cover valuable assets with more cost-efficient AA>don't target enemy drone operators and logistical hubs>don't try to perform attrition damage on your enemyA lot of people have to fuck up on a lot of levels to make your calculations somehow related to real life.
>>59586204Some people think wars consist solely of one side shooting missiles at the other.
>>59586123> Tungsten rain pouring on hundreds of modernized D30 pulled by human trains.Kino
>>59585557
Usually a Nona is a bad trade for a GMLRS but in this case the US is paying for it so it’s fine because those 120mm mortars could have killed some of your troops even if they’re likely to miss.
>>59584510>>59584951Looks like someone got away, might have been that guy. Someone runs onto the road from the hedgerow when that vehicle comes by.
>>595845292S9 nona is an SPH retard.
>>59586272>a tank for an artillery shell>bad tradeMuch obliged.
>>59586272tell that to the 2x4 crewmen who where on board the Nonas.
>>59586308It’s a lightly armored mortar system and those were GMLRS rockets.
>>59586328we know what Nonas are. It's an excellent trade. two self propelled mortars and 8 crew for 3 GMLRS, I'll take that all fucking day long.
>>59585832bye bye serbnigger
>>59586203Yeah, I do. Do you remember the thread breaking down the Shaheed's components and debunking the Shaheed's supposed cost?Also the Shaheed costing has always been suspect, because it doesn't account for scarcityCost =/= availability>>59586204A lot of people HAVE fucked up on a lot of levels, which is the primary reason why European NATO would be hard pressed to fight a competent enemy of similar economic size>>59586215>people don't need to be paid, fed, housed, taught>aircraft and tanks don't need to be manufacturedMoney underlies everything
>>59584484Jesus e-begging in webm's smfh
>>59586328GMLRS only cost $178,000 apiece. They're not made of solid gold.
>>59584807You would like to know, huh?
Gotta love how we're at a point where we get to nitpick the financial efficiency of the well ongoing TZD.
>>59586713bananbox?
>>59586121>The alternative is coming up with a cost-effective solution, whatever it may be.Firing a $1,000,000 missile at his $10,000,000 drone launching platform, obviously.Nobody ever wins a war by defending, which is why worrying about the cost-effectiveness of interceptors is a mug's game. Your objective is never to come out ahead in a situation of permanent defence, your objective is to be able to defend for long enough to start attacking, and once you do that the problems go away.
>>59584588looks flimsy AF
>>59587092>worrying about the cost-effectiveness of interceptors is a mug's gameWould you continue to say that if your million-dollar missile aimed at that 10-million-dollar launcher was balked by a thousand-dollar interceptor?
>>59584484>Not pinpoint accuratesloppy work, HIMARS crew must be having a bad day
>>59584807Snake
>>59587337No, I'd just send in a tank because there's more to war than flinging missiles at each other. The $1,000,000 missile is representative - the point is that if you're intercepting missiles you're already losing and the solution is not to do it well, the solution is to stop doing it at all. In this case, by destroying the enemy's capacity to fling missiles at you.Your hypothetical is built around a scenario where the enemy can fling infinite cheap missiles at you forever. The point of this is to draw out the problem with using expensive interceptors to defeat cheap attackers. But the hypothetical doesn't translate to a NATO war for two reasons: 1, why would I let him do that? and 2, interceptors have an inherent advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness because they don't need to fly as far or carry as big of a warhead - i.e. interceptors should always be cheaper than what they're intercepting. For example, a Maxim gun can credibly intercept a Shahed. The reason why the West is using Patriot missiles to intercept Kalibrs is because we don't have enough Gepards - if we actually wanted to get into a missile fight the side doing the intercepting would always win. But there's a reason why we don't have "enough" Gepards too, and that's because we don't need them because we're never going to sit back and let people fire missiles at us forever.You've made a valid observation but it's specific to the unique circumstances in Ukraine where NATO airpower is nonexistent. In a broader context it simply isn't relevant. Making cheap(er) interceptors is never going to be a problem if required because interceptors will always be cheaper than what they're intercepting, all else being equal, and secondly we don't need to do it because we can just blow up the source of the interceptors anyway.
>>59584484>Dat CEP doeIt's beautiful and it means there's way less shit to clean up afterwards. Best of both worlds.
>>59586095Yes if they can produce more arms and continue to attack longer than you can, you lose. The alternative is losing all of your tanks sooner, and losing the war sooner.
>>59585041You're forgetting that Storm Shadow will be selling like hotcakes. This is advertising.Also: the electronics inside are cheaper now. Not more expensive.Also: these arms have a best before date. They always need to be replaced.
>>59587392oh you mean like this one? it's from today and the customer is a Tor M2 Tellar.
>>59588420>yes this is me, you're probably wondering how i ended up there
>>59585041>bong>doesn't have £BAE in his portfolio with all this hot shit PR they're getting for salesngmi
>>59585041>Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting the war, but we can't delude ourselves about the costs either.Post-war, allied nations should get a hunk of profits from industries they help stand back up. The Ukrainians should get all frozen Russian liquid assets. Western economies can afford to wait to be paid back, but Ukraine will benefit most from an 'instant cash infusion.'I would further opine that costs can be kept down using Russian POWs for labor. It is legal under the laws of war to require POWs to perform labor. Therefore, they should be used to perform dangerous and tedious tasks, such as UXO disposal, remediation of spilled chemicals, and mass disposal of Russian bodies. Naturally they will not be paid to do this work. This way you not only eliminate labor cost in undesirable work, but you limit deadly accidents to people who don't matter and who you don't have to do anything but the medical minimum to save. That means no money wasted on therapy or prosthetics, use them up and send them back to Russia once you're done. If anything, many crippled POWs is a good thing, because they would return to Russia as parasites who drain the resources of their families, depressing post-war recovery.I think we should also explore further seizure of assets of family of Russian wealthy, and naturally any Russians currently in Ukraine as "civilians" should have all of their liquid assets considered stolen and seized by Ukraine before forced deportation. Maybe we can work out some sort of expensive fee/fine to recover dead soldiers' remains, too.
>>59588326>You're forgetting that Storm Shadow will be selling like hotcakes. This is advertising.It's certainly working out that way for the US.
>>59587536>In a broader context it simply isn't relevantActually, it is most relevant in the broadest context, of defence planning.TLDR all those things you said, they all cost too. Every counter-measure, counter-counter-measure, counter-counter-counter-measure.Strategy, in many ways, is being able to accomplish more with less.>>59588295Yep>>59588326>Storm Shadow will be selling like hotcakesI'm not sure it's in production any more.
>>59584581i can do you one better
>>59587196Of course it's flimsy as fuck, most mortar carriers are. Usually mortar carriers are going to be even less armored than artillery as the mortars are SUPPOSED to be utilizing their fast fire rate to launch a quick barrage then getting the fuck out of there. If there's one thing Russia has demonstrated in this war it's that they are terrible at defending against counter-battery. Like retardedly bad at it. Russia's entire military doctrine is supposed to be built around artillery superiority (numbers wise) and we're going to be going on 2 years into this war and they still haven't learned to dodge.Obviously I'm not saying there are NO Russian artillery units that shoot and scoot, but holy shit, it shouldn't be this easy to take them out. Not that I'm complaining mind you.
>>59584895>>59584658With how close they fly these drones to mobiks in the trenches, they may as well poke a few.>you will live to see a drone bayonet charge
>>59584484>genocideits just 2
>>59584807mobik staging pen
>>59584588Russian tanks look so cartoony
>>59584529Fighters have already been soul drained into BVR platforms, tanks are next.
>>59584484I always laugh when vatnig artillerymen get BTFO. No sympathy for those fags, especially after how they completely destroyed Mariupol and countless other cities.
>>59586095If you have perfectly reliable (but expensive) defence for your vehicles, you can drive all the way to their drone factory and steal it. That will more than recoup the cost of a few interceptors.
ATACMS will come to take out Russian AA before F16 arrives. Can't have Russians shooting down Western jets it's be bad for business. Then the F16s can be used to lob much cheaper glide bombs along the front.
>>59586121>inane poorfag copelel
>>59592716>just be richer than everyoneworks for the USA but not everyone elseand may not work for the USA all the time, not against an adversary with equivalent economic might
>>59591162Nothing is in production anymore and nothing is getting exported.Do you think third world countries buy Soviet trash out of choice or out of desperation?
>>59592871Storm Shadow was in production at the height of the "Lord Of War" days>shit movie btwwhen thirdies were buying up Soviet trash wholesaleIt's now more than 2 decades later. I don't think the production line is still running... although we can't be too sure. The UK doesn't always publish details of munitions expenditure like the US does, perhaps because they're small enough that regulations don't require it.You can theoretically make a couple dozen a year but how economical is that? I dunno, but I think it's highly unlikely.Only 2 countries are big enough to casually blow billions of dollars on weapons every year in training (or operations) and keep production lines running.
>>59584834How is that cretin still posting? Didn't the ukr glowies detain him?
>>59593475Gonzalo Lira aka Coach Retard Pill isn't WarGonzo.
>>59593205>but how economical is that?Not much, but if you have the money to spend, it's worth investing them in keeping the industrial knowledge alive.
>>59585136yeah but if your 1000 dollar missile blows up your multi billion s-400 system....
>>59593680Yes, and what if it is the enemy doing that to you?
>>59584484missiles cost $500K a piece tanks $25K
>>59588420i can spot a false flag sir
>>59588443>>59588420Now post the video of it driving off (it does)It is absolutely fucked though.
>>59584606I know it would be a massive waste BUT I FUCKING LOVE TZD AGHHHH
I don't understand how they have 0 counter to a HIMARS. Didn't they build shitloads of AA systems in anticipation of NATO using planes?
>>59593820what are you talking about? 250% of all himars have been destroyed
>>59593820and NATO built countermeasures to those AA systems, and continued to develop newer and better countermeasures for THIRTY YEARS while the Russians were stuck in their rut or made minimal upgrades
>>59584484Was it HIMARS or artillery?
>>59584606>ATACMS>targeting single soldiersStop, I can only get so erect
>>59586713>>59586891>bananboxShoop monke's face into it instead of Burns' ... and replace the question marks with banans. Should work out nicely for someone who has skillz.or ....Shoop a meatcube in place of the box.
>>59586121>understand that you're only delaying the inevitableWhat cucked mindset is this? Because you might lose (probably will lose) in the future you shouldn’t fight in the first place? I’ll pass
>>59586272Yeah... Thirdies are like"Lol the weapons Ukrainians just killed russians with cost more money lol ohh no nato" *laughs in street shitter*They don't seem to realize you can't make money if all your people were blown up. So I mean, they don't even value the lives of soldiers. Not in a moral sense but they don't realize soldiers.. fight wars and make weapons... Not money. Money just lays around in piles of everything is dead.
>>59595009If you can't follow the thread of the conversation, don't inflict your stupidity on the thread
>>59595090If you can’t defend your terrible viewpoint, don’t inflict your stupidity on the thread.
>>59584658>enter trench at head height>tilt towards ivan>max rotationA long line of Russian 2Ls.
>>59593702>time to wake upNo, I like it here.
>>59585252>I'm describing a purely notional mathematical example.You are being overly reductionist and retarded, though. Any model which you wish to use must also include value preserved by not letting the enemy’s cheap weapon hit their target AND understand that you are also targeting expensive systems with cheap weapons which must be stopped by more expensive weapons. Nothing is ever a simple trade in a vacuum, and simplifying down to that level is not ever useful.
>>59586435>>59586203>Do you remember the thread breaking down the Shaheed's components and debunking the Shaheed's supposed cost?And then the Shaheed for Sukoi deal was penned and it turned out that 4chan’s recosting of Shaheed still UNDER-valued the lawnmower powered cruise missiles by a factor of 4?Funniest thing, that. The gall of these Vatfricans to still try and claim a $20,000 price tag when shilling the pearl of “Iranian” technology, lmao.
>>59584807>compactor obr. 2022
>>59584807John Doe has the upper hand!
>>59595287>Nothing is ever a simple trade in a vacuumI never said it was>simplifying down to that level is not ever useful.It's in fact incredibly useful when planning national defence budgets and none of you can give any coherent reason why not.I don't know what is it with Americans, is it that you've become so used to having a trillion dollar defence budget that you don't understand simple math? or did you forget the lesson of WW2?Here's a thought exercise: take your heads out of your trillion dollar asses, and start thinking how you'll beat China with the budget of, mm, say, Italy. Go on. Try it. Then come back and tell me that cost doesn't matter.
>>59595880>I never said it wasYes you did>It's dead simple; you have 100 billion dollars, your opponent has 100 billion dollars; if you can kill his 1 million dollar missile with your 1 thousand dollar missile, guess who runs out of money first?This is you, right?What country are you from?
>>59596127What?
>>59586327You act like Russian "crew" actually worth anything
>>59596127There's a long thread of posts I wrote expounding further on this and why it's not LITERALLY just a missile exchange I'm talking about.Go and think about a situation in which you're fighting an opponent with a bigger budget and then come back to me.
>>59584484I liked the Nona in Wargame Red Dragon
>>59596150>What country are you from?
>>59584950You idiots understand this price thing is just political rhetoric to attack wars and military deployment, correct? Nobody serious or in charge of any military force or military engagement cares about any of this.
>>59596965What? I...
$64k per missile in the latest orders. You don't care what it cost when you bought it. You care what it costs to replace the ones you give away.
>>59586272This is one of my favorite new copes.>Lmao Russian systems and crew aren't worth a 200k missileA trained crew of 4 is already worth more than 200k with the time and resources you need to train them.If 4 dead vatniks + 1 destroyed vehicle could always be bought for 200k the war would be fucking cheap.
>>59595880>how you'll beat China with the budget of, mm, say, Italy. Go on. Try it. Then come back and tell me that cost doesn't matter.You sure as fuck don’t win by let the Chinese pound your FREMM-ITs to scrap with their chinesium ASHMs because it’s “too expensive” to pop 2.8mU$D Aster 30s at $60,000 Silkworms. You don’t save money letting valuable targets get hit, you save money by destroying launch platforms or using EWAR equipment to reduce the number that need to be intercepted and then you save money by ending the fight with offensive actions that the enemy cannot withstand.No one ever wins with a turtle strat, but if you allow yourself to be ravaged because you cannot afford defense, you will not last to take offensive action unless you initiate every conflict.
>>59584529It identifies as arty you bigot
>>59585136Money doesn’t vanish when you buy something retard, learn how an economy works
>>59596994Why don’t you answer the question? It’s really simple.
>>59584988>road still visible in 2nd picContinue firing.
>>59596173>Go and think about a situation in which you're fighting an opponent with a bigger budget and then come back to me.That will literally never be a concern of mine. Why would I bother?
>>59584484I don't know why this video reminded me of Command and Conquer Generals.
>>59596980>EVERYONE serious or in charge of any military force or military engagement cares aboutdefence budgeting.FTFY.>>59597363You're evading the question; you're telling me a lot of details but not the main principle which is what I asked about.Tell me more about how budget won't matter to Italy when they take on China. Tell me more about how, like all these geniuses ITT imply, Italy can afford top dollar solutions to defeating the Chinese horde. Tell me how 1 Italian euro of defence budget can defeat 35 Chinese yuan worth of defence budget.>>59597397Okay, so what's your proposition? You pay money to people who make a missile, and then what... they pay that money to someone else who makes another missile, and that way you get 2 missiles for the price of 1?Maybe you're the one who should learn how an economy works, retard.>>59597904Then butt out of things you know jack about.
>>59594061If we had kept spending 5.5% of GDP on defense like we were during the Cold War, hypersonic cruise missiles would be treated as platoon-level fire support assets.
>>59584658>Automation threatens to make the wandering ronin obsolete.
>>59595880(You)
>>59595352So how much do they really cost? The 100k pricetag bandied around does sound fishy in hindsight, but I assumed those moped engines don't cost too muchCaptcha: NGADSR
>>59596994>What ain't no country I ever heard of; they speak English in What?!
>>59584484It feels like staying put is just asking to get shelled off the map. What's the timeframe of this look like? Like, say my unit spots a vehicle hull or a drone passes by and sees this; is there an average time from first reporting, going to artillery command, setting the firing solution, and then seeing shots on target?
>>59602326This is a good read:>https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/08/17/russia-iran-drone-shahed-alabuga/A very simplistic valuation is that 2 billion dollars / 6,000 drones = $333,333 each, although this includes R&D cost. However this only provides a minimum price, being what Russia actually paid Iran for the technology and some parts; as described in the article most of the parts are American and need to be further purchased and smuggled into Russia. That would contribute significantly to their manufacturing cost.For comparison, Storm Shadow cost 960,000 pounds in 1997 inclusive of R&D cost, which in today's pounds is 1.8 million. But I think we all agree that Storm Shadow is vastly more effective.
>>59602406Thanks anon
