Challenger disaster!!!!!

[Herodotus]

No, not the space shuttle but the latest "game changer." With the Abrams being introduced to the junk pile this fall and the Seanpennwaffe's F-16s to be reduced to wreckage in 2024 and 2025, it seems there is not much truth in the superiority of western weapons.  When used against "near peer" armies they burn.  The only difference is they burn a lot more taxpayer dollars:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Professor Pigworth]

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

No, not the space shuttle but the latest "game changer." With the Abrams being introduced to the junk pile this fall and the Seanpennwaffe's F-16s to be reduced to wreckage in 2024 and 2025, it seems there is not much truth in the superiority of western weapons.  When used against "near peer" armies they burn.  The only difference is they burn a lot more taxpayer dollars:

 

Who could have guessed that the Western MIC which exists primarily to make profits for itself at tax-payers' expense and, of course, the politicians with close ties to it,  could have produced inferior weapons?  Meanwhile, the Russians produce superior-performing tanks, etc., that cost three times less. 

But I hear that Western tanks are really good at fighting against Afghan goatherders, so there's that.

 

Remember: If it's from the Professor, you know it's got to be good.

The Professor's propaganda is premium propaganda.

[Herodotus]

11 minutes ago, Professor Pigworth said:

Who could have guessed that the Western MIC which exists primarily to make profits for itself at tax-payers' expense and, of course, the politicians with close ties to it,  could have produced inferior weapons?  Meanwhile, the Russians produce superior-performing tanks, etc., that cost three times less. 

But I hear that Western tanks are really good at fighting against Afghan goatherders, so there's that.

 

Remember: If it's from the Professor, you know it's got to be good.

The Professor's propaganda is premium propaganda.

Do keep in mind that the Russian and US/NATO military industrial complexes build weapons for two very different missions.  The Russians produce weapons that are rugged, fairly reliable in combat, are easy to build, operate, and maintain and exist primarily to defend the motherland.  Even during the Cold War the Warsaw Pact was primarily a defensive bloc to ensure US and NATO would have to kill a lot of Germans, Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, and Romanians before they got to Russia.  In fact, it was NATO that was always the aggressor bloc.

 

The US and NATO produce weapons which are overengineered and remarkably fragile if not used in combined arms operations with the benefit of overwhelming close air support and artillery superiority.  As an aside, I knew because of the lack of air force possessed by Ukraine, lack of logistics (you also need that in war, jackoffs who play Call of Duty think you win with a new mega tank, strategic thinkers know its all about the logistics train) and so on that the Ukrainian "offensive" would be a lot more like a Jim Jones revival meeting in Guyana and a lot less like Normandy.  Oh and if you want to tarnish our greatest generation by continuing to compare this mass suicide with the brilliant military operation that was Overlord, do keep in mind that D-Day plus 90 Paris had been liberated, one army had smashed into Holland and another was driving ever closer to the Reich.  Idiot Day +90? Not even to the first defense belt.

 

Anyways western weapons are overengineered, extremely fragile, and overpriced garbage designed to achieve quick victories in regime change wars against third world nations in order to steal their mineral and oil resources.  Simultaneously, they are designed to fleece taxpayers and greatly enrich the mic fatcats.  For world peace, the best thing that can happen is for the burned out hulks of Abrams and Challengers and seanpennwaffe f-16s to litter the battlefield of Ukraine.

[Professor Pigworth]

It looks like the UK Ministry of Defence will have to update their claim that they've never lost a Challenger II tank.  My sympathies are with the poor, hardworking, honest arms industry that will inevitably suffer a decrease in their worldwide sales of Challenger II tanks and other weapons. What a high price they're having to pay for this war.

The one thing that can still save them from a big blow to their profits and reputation is that the tank that was destroyed didn't feature the more expensive protective layer of reinforced armour. So maybe they can point that out to future potential buyers and can still claim, "We've never experienced the loss of a Challenger II tank with the latest protective upgrade." 

https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/combat-vehicles/#:~:text=The Challenger 2 is a,the hands of the enemy.

The Challenger 2 is a main battle tank, designed to destroy other tanks. It has been used by the British Army on operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and has never experienced a loss at the hands of the enemy.  

Built in the UK by Vickers Defence Systems, now BAE Systems and Land Armaments, it was designed as a replacement to the Challenger 1 tank in 1986 and has been in service with the British Army since July 1994.

Challenger 2 is used by four armoured regiments, based in the South West of England at Tidworth, Wiltshire, and Bovington, Dorset. The regiments are called The Queen’s Royal Hussars, The King’s Royal Hussars, The Royal Tank Regiment, and The Royal Wessex Yeomanry which is the reserve regiment. Each regiment operates 56 Challenger 2 tanks and a similar number of supporting vehicles in tasks such as reconnaissance and ammunition supply.

 

[ICRockets2]

6 hours ago, Herodotus said:

Do keep in mind that the Russian and US/NATO military industrial complexes build weapons for two very different missions. 

LMAO of course you'd declare that the Russian MIC isn't bad

[Herodotus]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

LMAO of course you'd declare that the Russian MIC isn't bad

Its designed to fight us and has helped multiple countries defeat our imperialist aim.  That you cannot see that Ukraine is the ultimate victim of our economic hitmen just shows you are a highly indoctrinated boob.  Enjoy it, its the only titty you are ever going to see.

[ICRockets2]

Just now, Herodotus said:

Its designed to fight us and has helped multiple countries defeat our imperialist aim.  That you cannot see that Ukraine is the ultimate victim of our economic hitmen just shows you are a highly indoctrinated boob.  Enjoy it, its the only titty you are ever going to see.

lmao die tankie scum

[Herodotus]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

lmao die tankie scum

Indoctrinated incel

[ICRockets2]

Just now, Herodotus said:

Indoctrinated incel

A fun thing to do before you say words is learn what they mean.  

What does incel mean, retard?

[Herodotus]

46 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

A fun thing to do before you say words is learn what they mean.  

What does incel mean, retard?

What is a "leftist" doing using the word "retard?"

[shiva2999]

 

[ICRockets2]

43 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

What is a "leftist" doing using the word "retard?"

Insulting your intelligence, because it deserves to be insulted.

If there were a more effective and more extreme insult I could use instead I would use it, but there isn't so I make do.

 

[Herodotus]

47 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Insulting your intelligence, because it deserves to be insulted.

If there were a more effective and more extreme insult I could use instead I would use it, but there isn't so I make do.

 

You're just jealous that you don't have any intelligence to insult

[Herodotus]

Back to topic

[ICRockets2]

26 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

You're just jealous that you don't have any intelligence to insult

If that were true you'd be able to carry on a conversation about Euromaidan much longer than you've proven thus far.

[Herodotus]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

If that were true you'd be able to carry on a conversation about Euromaidan much longer than you've proven thus far.

Its impossible to debate with someone who thinks there are more than two sexes and thinks that men can have periods and give birth.  I cannot reason with a crazy person and so its not worth my time.   

[ICRockets2]

9 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

Its impossible to debate with someone who thinks there are more than two sexes and thinks that men can have periods and give birth.  I cannot reason with a crazy person and so its not worth my time.   

LOL an immediate pivot away from the topic using an ad hominem fallacy, thank you for proving my point.

[shiva2999]

 

[HipKat]

22 hours ago, Herodotus said:

Do keep in mind that the Russian and US/NATO military industrial complexes build weapons for two very different missions.  The Russians produce weapons that are rugged, fairly reliable in combat, are easy to build, operate, and maintain and exist primarily to defend the motherland.  Even during the Cold War the Warsaw Pact was primarily a defensive bloc to ensure US and NATO would have to kill a lot of Germans, Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, and Romanians before they got to Russia.  In fact, it was NATO that was always the aggressor bloc.

 

The US and NATO produce weapons which are overengineered and remarkably fragile if not used in combined arms operations with the benefit of overwhelming close air support and artillery superiority.  As an aside, I knew because of the lack of air force possessed by Ukraine, lack of logistics (you also need that in war, jackoffs who play Call of Duty think you win with a new mega tank, strategic thinkers know its all about the logistics train) and so on that the Ukrainian "offensive" would be a lot more like a Jim Jones revival meeting in Guyana and a lot less like Normandy.  Oh and if you want to tarnish our greatest generation by continuing to compare this mass suicide with the brilliant military operation that was Overlord, do keep in mind that D-Day plus 90 Paris had been liberated, one army had smashed into Holland and another was driving ever closer to the Reich.  Idiot Day +90? Not even to the first defense belt.

 

Anyways western weapons are overengineered, extremely fragile, and overpriced garbage designed to achieve quick victories in regime change wars against third world nations in order to steal their mineral and oil resources.  Simultaneously, they are designed to fleece taxpayers and greatly enrich the mic fatcats.  For world peace, the best thing that can happen is for the burned out hulks of Abrams and Challengers and seanpennwaffe f-16s to litter the battlefield of Ukraine.

This has to be one of the least informed, stupidest things you've ever posted.

First, what the FUCK do you know about the military in general or the effectiveness of US Weapons systems?

1, the M1 Abranm,s is a 40 year old tank - retard.

2, The US is moving away from traditional ground warfare via more technological and remote weaponry.

3, we're not going to send the most modern weaponry to other countries.

4, go fuck yourself, retard

[HipKat]

12 hours ago, Herodotus said:

Indoctrinated incel

You said that to the mirror, right?

[Herodotus]

13 minutes ago, HipKat said:

This has to be one of the least informed, stupidest things you've ever posted.

First, what the FUCK do you know about the military in general or the effectiveness of US Weapons systems?

1, the M1 Abranm,s is a 40 year old tank - retard.

2, The US is moving away from traditional ground warfare via more technological and remote weaponry.

3, we're not going to send the most modern weaponry to other countries.

4, go fuck yourself, retard

1. I know that the United States hasn't won a war since WWI except Grenada.  Can't beat goat herders in Afghanistan, couldn't beat Iraq, couldn't beat Serbia, huah!

2. No shit, I know that. 

3. No shit, I also know Stryker burns nicely too.  Also, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc have drones that destroy NATO equipment 

4. So we are sending the Ukes monkey works? That must be demoralizing for them

5. Not a point, just a confession that you don't have an argument.

[Herodotus]

By the way Hip, the copium you have about strykers, challengers, Bradleys, M119s, Abrams, and F-16s goes nicely with your copium about Russian advances.

 

Lets see, When Russia moves on a town it starts as-

1. The town has strategic importance and will never be taken as Russian forces have fissured and they use soviet tactics (not seen since the darkest days of 1941) because their strategy is deep battle, something which greatly inspired our current combined arms strategy and Ukraine uses "NATO standard" Strategy of combined arms warfare*

2. As Russia advances into the town, Russia is wasting a lot of lives but superior "nato standard" forces will hold it.

3. Once the Russians have all but ousted the Ukrainians, the town was strategically insignificant

4. When the town is in the Russian rear, and the Russians are moving on to the next town, you cite the Guardian, Voice of America and the New York Times who cite a Ukrainian general who claims the town is still being held.

5. The new town becomes strategically significant and Russia will never take it.

 

Like I said, your copium on this sounds a lot like your copium about the superiority of NATO weapons:

1. The [insert name and type of weapon used against some impoverished nation in the global south in pursuit of regime change and resource piracy there] is a "game changer." Russia has no chance against this weapons system.

2. Pics of the weapon blowing up or being captured become "photoshops" and "fakes"

3. When the weapon ends up on display in Petersburg or Moscow, its a 40 year old weapons system, you really think we'd send Ukraine our newest stuff (by the way, when those who know about Russian weapons exports in the 80s to countries they didn't particularly trust say the Russians gave Saddam monkey works tanks with training rounds**, the claim was nuh uh, the Abrams is superior and beat out the best Soviet tanks)?

4. The new weapons we are giving Ukraine are wonderweapons the like of which Russia will not be able to defeat.

*, yeah for much of wwii to the present the Soviets never banked on numerical superiority.  In fact, it was only in 1944 and 1945 that the Soviets enjoyed any overwhelming numerical superiority over Germany.  They never envisioned human wave attacks v NATO in the Cold War

**, yeah they didn't trust Saddam.  They gave him junk tanks.  If the engine rattled he got it.  The gunsights were bent? He got it.   They were also stripped of all armor packages and given training rounds.  We won't even get into the Lion of Babylon.

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

1. I know that the United States hasn't won a war since WWI except Grenada.  Can't beat goat herders in Afghanistan, couldn't beat Iraq, couldn't beat Serbia, huah!

Define beat.

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

2. No shit, I know that. 

3. No shit, I also know Stryker burns nicely too.  Also, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc have drones that destroy NATO equipment 

4. So we are sending the Ukes monkey works? That must be demoralizing for them

IGAF if they feel demoralized or not, what they get is better than whjat rhey had

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

5. Not a point, just a confession that you don't have an argument.

Not a point because there was no 5th bullet point you mean?

[HipKat]

12 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

By the way Hip, the copium you have about strykers, challengers, Bradleys, M119s, Abrams, and F-16s goes nicely with your copium about Russian advances.

 

Lets see, When Russia moves on a town it starts as-

1. The town has strategic importance and will never be taken as Russian forces have fissured and they use soviet tactics (not seen since the darkest days of 1941) because their strategy is deep battle, something which greatly inspired our current combined arms strategy and Ukraine uses "NATO standard" Strategy of combined arms warfare*

2. As Russia advances into the town, Russia is wasting a lot of lives but superior "nato standard" forces will hold it.

3. Once the Russians have all but ousted the Ukrainians, the town was strategically insignificant

4. When the town is in the Russian rear, and the Russians are moving on to the next town, you cite the Guardian, Voice of America and the New York Times who cite a Ukrainian general who claims the town is still being held.

5. The new town becomes strategically significant and Russia will never take it.

 

Like I said, your copium on this sounds a lot like your copium about the superiority of NATO weapons:

1. The [insert name and type of weapon used against some impoverished nation in the global south in pursuit of regime change and resource piracy there] is a "game changer." Russia has no chance against this weapons system.

2. Pics of the weapon blowing up or being captured become "photoshops" and "fakes"

3. When the weapon ends up on display in Petersburg or Moscow, its a 40 year old weapons system, you really think we'd send Ukraine our newest stuff (by the way, when those who know about Russian weapons exports in the 80s to countries they didn't particularly trust say the Russians gave Saddam monkey works tanks with training rounds**, the claim was nuh uh, the Abrams is superior and beat out the best Soviet tanks)?

4. The new weapons we are giving Ukraine are wonderweapons the like of which Russia will not be able to defeat.

*, yeah for much of wwii to the present the Soviets never banked on numerical superiority.  In fact, it was only in 1944 and 1945 that the Soviets enjoyed any overwhelming numerical superiority over Germany.  They never envisioned human wave attacks v NATO in the Cold War

**, yeah they didn't trust Saddam.  They gave him junk tanks.  If the engine rattled he got it.  The gunsights were bent? He got it.   They were also stripped of all armor packages and given training rounds.  We won't even get into the Lion of Babylon.

[Herodotus]

5 hours ago, HipKat said:

Define beat.

IGAF if they feel demoralized or not, what they get is better than whjat rhey had

Not a point because there was no 5th bullet point you mean?

The mission was not accomplished

Was it though? What they had burned.  What we gave them burns, albeit for more of our tax dollars

Its a point, saying shut the fuck up is the tell that you have nothing to say