/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

GOY PLS

>>4852114

I heard it will take only 3 days for Russians to be near the french coast and that the average life expectancy of a NATO soldier would be 21 hours.

Poor Balts. Forever someone else's bitch.

>>4852114

>Too lazy to archive.

Faggot.

http://archive.is/pAp38

>>4852114

This has been the case since the 1950s.

>>4852138

If they used nukes maybe.

Otherwise, they would be atleast stalled in middle of Poland, or at the border with Germany.

This is new?

It's the easiest it's ever been in history to conquer Europe.

Mudshits with plastic boats are doing it.

> Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

Are those white countries?

If not; I don't care. If so; nuke Iran.

>>4852163

>Are those white countries?

Milk-bottle white.

The West is incredibly arrogant talking about exceptionalism for decades as they get softer and softer and Russian and Chinese wolves just steal whatever new tech comes out.

>>4852166

>>4852171

Boys. Buckle up, we're nuking Iran.

Looks like think tank anon was right. Expect AWACS and Syria in the headlines soon.

>>4852147

hey might even take Germany. Have you seen their polymer shit G 19 assault rifle?

Russia spends 4 or more percent of its GDP while the rest of the European nations barely pay 1.5%. They cut defense spending because it's the easiest cuts to justify to the public so they can maintain the middle class welfare that will be the doom of all western nations. If the US decided to withdraw from NATO tomorrow, Russia could take Paris within a year or less.

>>4852222

Nice quints..

>>4852222

>>4852231

QUADS…Gotta check my shitty eye sight.

>>4852163

>nuke iran

shlomo pls

>>4852147

>forgetting that Russia imports natural gas and oil in Europe

All they have to do is shut off the fuel right before winter, get their conveys ready, and they could steamroll Europe.

>>4852245

It's silly paranoia anyways. Russia isn't going to invade shit.

http://inserbia.info/today/2016/02/cohen-risk-of-a-nuclear-war-highest-since-cuban-missile-crisis/

Wow, that's up a day and a half from the assessment in the 70s I think.

Why would Russia want to invade the Baltic countries? They have an enormous amount of land already.

>>4852242

Oh right. Israel too. It was a mistake! Just like the warship the kikes destroyed.

>>4852198

Problem?

>>4852278

For the Memeland

>>4852146

In the 1950's the Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union and under Russian control.

This was true until 1992.

>>4852259

Faggot.

http://archive.is/nL3D0

>>4852249

I can see it now actually.

>Trump becomes president

>Makes America great again

>Winter 2017

>USA leaves NATO and joins in an alliance with Russia

>Meanwhile Putin was holocausting in his backyard

>Operatives are sent in to disable Israels nukes

>Israel gets glassed

>Turkey gets glassed because fuck Turkey

>Assad the lion gets rightful claim over Syria

>America and Russia free Europe from their Jewish overlords while purging kebabs and degenerates left and right that fight them with inflating dildos and feminist jazz hands

>Preheat oven to 1000oC

>Shove remaining Jew bankers in

An anon can dream…

Please happen.

>>4852305

>>Preheat oven to 1000oC

Your dreams are too much fam.

Be realistic.

1000 celcius?

Get outta here.

>>4852360

They can't do that to Russia.

Russians would sooner have MAD.

>>4852360

They can't do that to Russia.

Russians would sooner have MAD.

>>4852373

>MAD

Mothers Against Drunk?

>>4852245

>Pushing NATO right up to the borders of Russia was not a good idea.

Try telling jews that. It's more shekels for Boeing and other defense contractors.

>>4852414

Eh.

The US government would go into that war. The people would not.

It's why I'm pretty sure a US rev / civil war will start at the same time as WW3.

>>4852410

Mutually assured destruction

>>4852305

>America liberating Europe from shitskins and jews.

Yeah they intent to do at others what they can't do at home right?

>>4852114

RIDF at it again. Wanna know how can I tell?

1st giveaway "US war planners say" to increase validity

2nd "NATO has been caught napping and would be hopelessly outgunned by Russia in the Baltics in THREE DAYS"

Thats why russia is still struggling to gain foothold in Crimea, blitzkrieg doesn't work as a valid tactic anymore.

3rd Article has Obama and putin side to side, glorifying Putin compared to ape.

And many more.

>>4852522

But you gotta admit..EU weapons are over engineered plastic shit..They would be easily overwelmed by reliable Russian weapons.

>>4852543

>>4852543

>USA weapons are over engineered plastic shit..They would be easily overwelmed by reliable Russian weapons.

Fixed that for you.

>>4852625

>Who cares?

FTFY

>>4852671

I was not saying it never jams. It rough environments it is far more reliable. Not to mention they have the AK 107 with virtually no recoil and the AK 12 now..

>>4852625

Nigger, american weapons are at least aluminum.

>>4852522

EU is weak as fuck.

I have extensive experience in simulations of 'cold war gone hot' in the baltics and i can confirm that russians are OP as fuck.

>>4852708

Finland has no nukes…It's a different ball game now.

Every war game run by NATO vs Soviet has always been about massive Soviet gain in the beginning then being pushed back by US later.

Lel, Russia clearly doesn't understand that the US army is now composed of stronk independent womyn and mexicans, capable of fighting the patriarchy!

Silly putin should know the US military is diversity stronk!

>>4852748

Stalled not by the pathetic bundeswehr, but tactical nukes that are in Germanland, ready to explode to blunt the spear of the Soviet.

>>4852714

If they start throwing nukes around it's over for everyone anyway.

>>4852748

A combined nato effort would probably stall them at the Fulda-Gap, as was planned during the Cold War, thus giving the rest of Germany and Europe enough time to churn out more material and bodies for the front.

>>4852222

>Russia could take Paris within a year or less.

I'd give it 2 weeks tops. We'd welcome him with open arms.

>>4852834

>What is worse? Being in control by muslims, or being in control by russians?

Neither

>>4852849

Yeah, at first I wrote about Israel, and then remember Turkey. Forgot to change "ally" to "allies"

US war planners, in the employ of the Military Industrial Complex, say NATO has been caught napping and would be hopelessly outgunned by Russia in the Baltics in THREE DAYS

Fixed.

>>4852847

>Neither

So, you and your family staying with muslims, and you will be okay with this, because russians are "no better"?

>>4852851

Wow, the entire soviet union managed to defeat tiny Finland.

>>4852864

>I for one welcome our new overlords

Both are shit. Chosing the lesser shit is not my personal choice, sorry

>>4852278

The kikes are trying to instill fear into us about Russia. The BBC had a mockumentary on all about how Russia was going to nuke us all.

The kikes want Russia to be the major threat again. Not the muzzies.

>>4852866

So they can also wreck the Baltics. Which are smaller combined then Finland.

>>4852884

>missing the point

>>4852806

>Whites leaving their own alliance?

Which one would that be?

>Joining forces with its main enemy

Putin is White Americans main enemy?

>destroying its 2 main ally in middle east

Are you actually arguing Israel is an ally of White Americans?

>admitting defeat in Syria by leaving Assad in control

How does the geo-political situation in Syria have any effect on White Americans?

>"liberating" Europe by giving half to Russia, instead of keeping it whole, like USA does right now

Where is Europe whole? It's rapidly balkanizing into European/Non-European ethno-states and tribes?

You must have been speaking from the perspective of Jews in America..

>>4852834

>in 20 years europe will be 70% shitskin

sauce on that.

>>4852163

Estonia is the only country I can think of that has ever made a movie with the Waffen SS as protagonists.

The Soviet Union invaded finland and failed epically, the finns ceded land because they were tired of fighting and inteded to take it back when germany invaded, which they did.

Its called the continuation war.

Even when they where steamrolling eastern europe they where scared of finland so they made a peace treaty.

The baltic countries were easy prey back then and didn't hve the backing of germany because of the Ribentrop-Molotov pact.

>>4852918

Say the conditions hold true, and no policy shift is made, Eurocucks stay cucked…

The influx of invaders grows exponentially each year, how many millions are expected to invade this spring and summer when the ice breaks?

>>4852806

>main ally in Middle east

>not allies

>uses a Jewish tv series gif

Hi kike

>>4852908

So you actullay tell me that the USA is not allies with Israel?

Have you been living under a rock or something?

>>4852910

>Which one would that be?

the NATO was made by the USA. And USA rules over the NATO

As for the rest, saying "White Americans" won't change the foreign policy that the USA has been doing for the last 80 years. Even with Trump, you'll keep doing the same tactics around the world. Get real, son.

>>4852943

the USA has 2 main allies in the middle-east. Turkey and Israel. I'd count Saudi Arabia, but I'm not sure that it counts as "middle-east"

>>4852965

Gosh, I fucking wish America break out of NATO.

That would be THE day.

>>4852965

>>4852982

>saying "White Americans" won't change the foreign policy that the USA has been doing for the last 80 years. Even with Trump, you'll keep doing the same tactics around the world. Get real, son.

Actually yes, it does. You're arguing from a Jewish-American perspective.

I'm asking you how any of these institutions which you mentioned benefit White Americans. How does NATO currently benefit White Americans?

Welcome to identity politics, where nobody White cares about what benefits Jews and non-Whites.

There is no sane reason for Whites to support "Israel and NATO" or a Judeo-Caliphate Europe over a Putin controlled Europe.

Does it bother you that Goyim can play the identity politics game?

>>4852932

Spurdo pls. The Soviets kept all the land gained from the winter war.

Russia can afford a new war lmao.

>>4853041

Cant*

>>4853041

lmao dude weed

>>4853041

More than the EU can.

>>4852147

The main defence plan for Poland is to transport all russian soldi… wait, refugees escaping the Putin regime to the German border with buses and trains.

>>4852138

That was the estimation by the British in the 60's if I recall correctly.

>>4852301

>not wanting to give traffic to a pro-serbia website

faggot

>>4852774

>combined nato effort

where is nato going to find enough bodies to fill both the army and factories

the diversified and pussified current military and law enforcement or the masses who have been thaught violence is bad mkay

why would anyone in any western country give anything to the state, fight and die for tranny/cunt/sandnig rights

the west has painted itself in a corner, the only people who like the current regime are limpdicked cucks who think guns are evil and every soldier a nazi, and simultaneous the only people capable of fighting with a hint of effectiveness aren't going to fight against their own interests

just like in the end days of the vietnamwar the leading cause of deaths among officers is getting killed by their own men, the internet has shown too many people the truth

off course this is all hypothetical as same like all the previous russia fearmongering threats, nobody has answered my question

why would russia want to invade western europe?

it is a high population area with no natural resources/energy left of note, just to keep the conquered population from starving once the shipping routes are blockade by nato navies would be nigh impossible

and add on top of that operation gladio like saboteurs blowing up all infrastructure and the entire place will be an unmanageable graveyard, the only thing putin has to do to win is sit back the west is quite well on its way collapsing on its own

>>4852114

Calm your tits. NATO has known this for a long time. A US thinktank pointed it out over half a year ago, take a look.

http://www.cepa org//sites/default/files/styles/medium/Baltic%20Sea%20Security%20Report-%20%282%29.compressed.pdf

Remember to remove the spaces between Cepa and .com

>>4854350

I know, I saw the old thread.

This was a new one, I thought.

>>4852851

a country 1 sixth of the world surface managed to copulate what was suppose to be a full invasion and re taking of Finland instead they got a small portion of the country. Truly impressive Ivan. Russians are retarded cunts who have always been shit at war.

>>4853205

The Netherlands alone has a higher capita then Russia. Yes they can afford a war Russia cant.

>>4852834

gonna need sauce on that stat ivan.

>>4854369

Yet they usually win them. And have never been conquered since the Russian state was funded.

>Ivan

Here come the shills.

>>4854389

Per capita means nothing. Russia has more state wealth then Europe technically… BECAUSE EUROPE IS IN TOTAL DEBT.

>>4852918

Birth rates, boomers dying, influx of shitskins going up year by year (last year had to have been 3-4 million in Europe alone).

Something has to happen soon.

>>4852114

>US war planners say NATO has been caught napping and would be hopelessly outgunned by Russia in the Baltics in THREE DAYS

Good for the Baltics I guess.

>>4852163

Two of the Whitest countries and one mongolian.

>>4854419

>Russia has more state wealth then Europe technically… BECAUSE EUROPE IS IN TOTAL DEBT.

Yes, but what debt they do have is harder for them to pay back, because Putin can not into actual economics.

>>4855354

>tripfagging

>MUH SUPERIOR LOLBERG ECONOMIC PERCEPTIONS

>(1)

>>4855396

>(1)

Its called reading a thread before you post, jackass.

>>4852690

The modern AR-15s give aks a run for their money in the reliability department. The AK is so antiquated in the ergonomics department, that it really shouldn't even be considered a serious modern assault rifle.

>people thinking that economy and not manufacturing base matter in war

L

M

A

O

>>4852625

American weapons are the most tested, and used in the world. Those slavs are going to get cluster bombed, and given the hitler treatment, if they push too hard.

>>4859243

>AR-15

>reliable

whew

lad

>>4852114

FUCK NATO.

FUCK PAYING FOR THE DEFENSE OF EUROPE.

LET THEM PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.

STOP LETTING THEM PRETEND THAT SOCIALISM WORKS.

>>4859277

Epic meme my friend.

>>4859355

Name (1) military in the world that uses them.

>>4852222

France has nuclear missiles.. Three words mutually assured destruction

Just because no one talks about the threat of nuclear war doesn't mean all those weapons just melted away in the sun like snow.

>>4854419

Russian state was funded? What? You were Mongolians bitches for like 1000 years. You lost ww1. The Brits and the French kicked the shit out of you when you tried to take back Turkey. You like all Russians are a boastful coward full of lies.

>>4859384

US military, and many others. There are a fuckton of AR 15s in various parts of the world. You are delusional.

The modern AKs and AR-15s are pretty matched for reliability. The AK suffers massively in ergonomics. The AK design is so bulky, and sloppy it makes it easy for dirt to get into the internals. American engineers use dust covers, and a decent body design to stop this.

>>4854326

>where is nato going to find enough bodies to fill both the army and factories

>the diversified and pussified current military and law enforcement or the masses who have been thaught violence is bad mkay

It takes about 1% of the population of Europe to match the russian army in pure number game.

>>4852294

underrated post

>>4860181

>Lynch, then a supply clerk with the 507th Maintenance Company from Fort Bliss, Texas, was wounded and captured by Iraqi forces.[7] She was initially listed as missing in action. Eleven other soldiers in the company were killed in the ambush. Five other soldiers were captured and subsequently rescued 21 days later. Lynch's best friend, Lori Piestewa, received a serious head wound and died in an Iraqi civilian hospital.[8]

Nigger what the fuck?

Nothing about this said their M4/16 jammed.

>>4860197

>On April 24, 2007, she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon (her M16 rifle having jammed), and that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed.[1]

This only says the bitch's weapon jammed.

>>4860219

And the rest of her convoy did what? Oh, that's right, they surrendered because to a man they had not one operational weapon

>>4860257

They were ambushed and killed/captured.

>The convoy came under attack by enemy fire. The Humvee in which Lynch was riding was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer. Lynch was severely injured.[6]

Bitch's ride was hit by a RPG.

It's good she fucking survived at all.

>>4860181

>The AK-47 has never jammed in a military operation, never ever

Nice shitpost come back with some real facts.

>>4860349

OK, anon.

Just remember more Iraqi with their superior slavic equipment surrendered to puny US army with puny M16.

>>4860407

Bitch was a supply clerk, not even a frontline.

She didn't do shit.

>>4860400

>the US won the iraq war

top kek

Once again

NATO IS NOT GOING TO INVADE DURING OBAMA'S LAST MONTHS, IT WOULD ENSURE A REPUBLICAN VICTORY AND CAUSE A TRUMP SURGE SINCE HE IS THE BIGGEST ANTIWAR CANDIDATE, ONLY WAY THEY COULD FEASIBLY DO THAT IS TO SUSPEND ELECTIONS WHICH I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT ESP WITH HOW MUCH STATES HATE THE FED AND THE INT POLITIC HATES OBAMA

>>4860510

If their oudated Soviet arsenal is better than American-made trash, why do they lose?

>>4860522

Jesus fuck, not even the ruskies use the 7.62x39 anymore.

If you think it's superior, fine, but no american military nor russian military do.

>The result was that an M-4 is only really reliable at 100 meters or less, at which point an MP-5 is a better choice.

You can go to the range and test this out, and no, it's not fucking true.

>>4860565

They destroyed the Iraqi military.

Iraqi insurgents are the only thing that manage to stop the US from complete domination.

>>4860611

that doesnt change the fact that the US never accomplished its objectives in Iraq which is now a puppet of Iran in government areas, basically the worst possible outcome

>>4852910

>capitalizing white

We got an autist over here

>>4860642

There are things wrong with 7.62x39:

- it's too heavy, you can carry more 5.56 and 5.45

- it loses velocity at longer range.

>and the US should have gone from the 7.62x54 to the 7.62x39 if they wanted a smaller round still effective to 500 meters.

7.62x39 is not effective to 500 meters, jesus fuck.

I don't know what the fuck you are smoking.

>>4860642

SLUUUTTTTTTTTTT

>>4860658

>not capitalizing the greatest ethnicity in the world

Kike spotted.

>>4860643

It's true and I admit that, but insurrection cannot be won unless we stop with the heart and mind bullshit. Either we kill them all or we just leave.

>>4860654

The US military is the best at conventional warfare but it loses in unconventional warfare i.e. insurrection because the US military believes in heart and minds strategy.

>>4860679

>7.62x39 is not effective to 500 meters, jesus fuck.

G3 is effective at least 700meters and lethal to up to more than 3 km.

>>4860713

G3 uses 7.62x51, not 7.62x39.

51 cm vs 39 cm, much more power going into the 7.62x51 case.

>>4860728

>powder*

>>4860642

> U.S. ever using a Russian 7.62x54 cartridge

Noguns please stop pretending you know what you're talking about

>>4860746

5.56 is not really a shit.

It's just a caliber, what really matters is how much grain of powder going on into it. In which case, you have to be specific.

>>4860787

lower powder capacity in the 5.56 case than either 5.45 or 7.62x39, the main is that 5.56 ammunition uses too light of a bullet leading to shit tier barrier penetration and easy deflection, also 5.56 rarely fragments past 150M out of an M4 barrel

>>4860801

main issue is*

>>4860801

5.56 has a longer case length than 5.45x39, which means it can have more powder in it.

Pretty much new 5.56 ammo uses more powder to compensate for the shorter barrel length.

>>4860810

An Infantryman's rifle isn't a rifle platoon's main killing implement though. That's why they lightened the rifle. The weapons co guys are the ones who kill the enemy, guys w/ 240s m2s, and the dms.

>>4860846

true but you should still equip your infantry with the best possible weapon, and there is less than a pound of weight difference between the M16A4 and AK-103 for comparison, also the M240 is .308 but 5.56 has no place in a belt fed weapon whatsoever

>>4860841

There is an upper limit to the pressure before things get interesting. And since force = pressure * area, having a tiny diameter is always going to make it difficult to get a lot of power into a 5.56mm round with a short barrel.

>>4860737

The NATO round pls, did I mistate the case length. What was fired from the M-14 rifle and the M-60? That 7.62

>>4860746

>10.5 inches is as good at 16 or more inches, using higher pressure ammo

ok then, use high-pressure ammo

>>4860787

caliber is caliber -a girl from K-On

.223 and. 22. … thise are pretty close to the same caliber. If it wasn't for the higher velocity at close range the 5.56 is as effecive as a 22 LR.

Another favorite argument for the 5.56 is: designed to wound, not kill. Need I go into refuting the il-logic of this stance?

>>4860865

7.62x39 effective range is around 300m, the same for 5.56.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ARzhz3Yjc

Take this video.

7.62x39 is more effective at 100m due to fact it's a heavier bullet, but 5.56x45 maintains its velocity better at longer range (200-300m).

>>4860923

5.56 has a bigger diameter than 5.45, the current round being used by the russians.

It's pretty much the best round currently being adapted by mainstream militaries because it's better than 5.45 but lighter than 7.62x39.

>>4860846

> rifle isn't a rifle platoon's main killing implement

Maybe they should change the name to: The Junior Varsity Squad

Pro-tip: Artillery was the leading cause of death in the last two world wars, in combat anyway

>>4860933

It's a fucking myth, but the logic is that wounding the enemies is better than killing him because it drains the enemy of more logistics, having to take care of the wounded soldiers.

And .223 and .22LR has similar diameter, but .223 has LONGER powder case, which means it's gonna be stronger. You use the fudd logic to demean 5.56.

>>4860913

Which is why everyone is using 5.56 LMG (M249, HK121, the Negrev), except the russians.

>>4860963

>5.56 has a bigger diameter than 5.45, the current round being used by the russians.

and still a lighter bullet with less penetration

>It's pretty much the best round currently being adapted by mainstream militaries because it's better than 5.45 but lighter than 7.62x39.

complete bullshit, also no major military has recently adopted 5.56, in fact india dropped the 5.56 INSAS and went back to 7.62x39 AKs

>>4860510

>being this mad

>using 2008 memes

>>4860942

I can hit a man-sized target with iron sights at 500 mm with 5.56, "effective range" is a suggestion based on ballistic performance. You could say 300 meters for both but one of the two hits harder.

>>4860989

>Which is why everyone is using 5.56 LMG (M249, HK121, the Negrev), except the russians.

also bullshit, more countries use the PKM alone than all 5.56LMGs combined

>>4860994

>and still a lighter bullet with less penetration

We switched from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45 because it's better to carry more bullets than less bullets.

>complete bullshit, also no major military has recently adopted 5.56, in fact india dropped the 5.56 INSAS and went back to 7.62x39 AKs

All NATO countries have already adopted to 5.56, while russians switch to using 5.45.

India went back to using AK because India rifles fucking suck, only the arabs insurgents use 7.62x39 because it's fucking abundant.

>>4861010

Only the arab insurgents who have nothing but outdated Soviet equipment.

Even then arab insurgents recently switch to using M249 and M16 clones too.

>>4861008

5.56 hits harder at long range than 7.62x39.

7.62 being heavy but slow moving cartridge means it's hit more at short range but actually drops at longer range.

>>4860984

You aren't worth it but here is a reply anyway:

The soldier needs confidence in his weapon system. We don't tell him the truth because he can't take it. He is going to take his 5.56 mm and shot at T-72 tanks because that is what we want, we want aggressive fighters. This actually happened in the Gulf War and the Iraqi tanks ran away. So that is why we aren't always hobest with the soldiers, but then you accuse me of FUD. So you thibk the 5.56 isn't tital shit. Well no shit, it can hit things and possibly hurt them, but relatively speaking its shit. Its a puny little round that is good for shooting gophers.

>>4861030

>thinking that this wasn't due to anything other than the CIA

I'm up past my bedtime but by Hitler's Ghost, go to bed kid

>Russia is coming right for us!

Literal propaganda-tier, no reason to publish this article otherwise.

>>4852163

>nuke Iran.

>>4852178

>nuking Iran.

>>4852293

>Problem?

>>4852665

>Who cares?

Either youre b8ing or a newfag. Whichever way, you ought to gas yourself

>>4861062

>and 7.62x51 is an entirely different class of ammunition, every country switched to intermediate ammo

Which is 5.56, 7.62x39 and 5.45. 5.56 is the best compromise because it's the medium choice between those 3 rounds.

>bullshit, most of the eastern european nato states are still using 5.45 or 7.62x39

Poland, Finland, Bulgaria uses 5.56 AKs. Only Romania still uses 7.62 AK anymore.

>bait, even finland uses x54r

Finland uses 5.56 AKs and fucking 5.56 SCAR, look it up.

>still wrong, even at 400 yards 7.62x39 still retains more ballistic energy even although it does drop more

That's wrong according to real life test.

Only the iraqi used 7.62x39 as a long-range round, and that's because they have nothing else.

>>4861057

You are a fudd because you the same mentality behind the ones who badmouth the 5.56, thinking it's the same as a varmint round.

And no, the 5.56 is not shit, it's a very versatile round and well used in conflicts. Even the russian tried to copy it with their 5.45x39.

If you want to use 7.62x39 fine, just don't get mad when your platoons get fucked up by 5.56 wielding soldiers.

>>4861077

They use M16 clones because Iran and Pakistan employ the chink M16.

>>4860984

OK, last post from me:

For the wounded enemy to place strain on their logistics it requires them to live. I'm not engaging the enemy for them to be slightly wounded. I want them to stop moving completely. The argument to the contrary is just damage control for a piss-poor round.

The problem with this "debate" is that it is emotional. Detach yourself from the emotion and you will see that the M-16 is historically more accurate due to a larger sight radius and in recent years the use of optics. If you look at the rounds themselves you will see that a 7.62x39 is better. If you look at the gas piston system of the AK, its better. A lot of things are better with the AK, it was really good. But the AK was based on a German design. It wasn't a a stroke of genius, it was a derivative of previous works, but compared to the M-16 it was at least twice as good. Its lack of effectiveness in combat has been due to the fact that Americans are trained to shoot better than their enemies by orders of magnitude. The weapon systems themselves should be judged on just the facts of their physical capabilities.

>>4861192

>7.62x39=blue, .308=green

7.62x39=green .308 is blue

>>4860522

>muh general issue issue

lol'd

>>4861192

The Russians took German designs at the close of WW2. With all honesty you cannot say that we will ever know the true history of that time period, and the SKS was the precursor to the AK, which you admit is similar in some respects to the STG-44. I submit that the AK and the STG-44 have many more similarities than you care to acknowledge.

Everything else you posted is great, thanks.

>>4861486

> and the SKS was the precursor to the AK

the SKS was developed after the AK was already finalized as a design but not in production yet

> which you admit is similar in some respects to the STG-44

mainly due to the germans using the tilting block and short stroke gas system from the SVT-40 in the G-43 design which influenced the STG, meanwhile the SKS was also based on the SVT-40 and PTRS

>>4861553

http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html has a lot of information on obscure designs, otherwise most of the information you can find will be on various forums

US policy has been to let the Ruskies take Europe for ages. Potential strategies included retaining a bridgehead in Belgium/Netherlands or abandoning the whole continent (not the UK) and strangling the USSR while we out produced them in military equipment from afar just like against Germany in WWII.

>>4861192

>its uses the lightest bullet with the least penetration out of all 3 while still weighing more than 5.45, by all measures it is the weakest of the 3 not the median

5.56 has more powder which means it's going to be maintain stabler velocity.

>only in limited numbers, and bulgaria uses very few 5.56 AKs

The entire Poland and Bulgaria military employ 5.56 AKs. Their 7.62 AK are for revervists.

>along with Hungaria and Croatia which almost exclusively use 7.62AKs,

Croatia has always made the switch to 5.56.

>and the Czech and Slovak Republics use 7.62x39 VZ58s still

Which is not an AK, and the Czech is already wanting to replace their rifles with a 5.56.

>atleast use a source before making retarded unfounded claims

Your source says:

>The .223/5.56 and .308/7.62 NATO loads are neck and neck in trajectory and much flatter than the slower a 7.62x39mm load. Even though the .223/5.56 has the lowest BC by far, the initial velocity of 3240 fps, which is much faster than either of it's two rivals, keeps it flat shooting. The .308 has a nice combination of decent velocity and a very high BC that makes it so ballistically balanced.

This means the 5.56 is still more accurate than 7.62 in longer range.

>Okay, this ought to make .308 shooter feel a lot better, because it shows why the .223 and 7.62x39mm are considered "medium-power" cartridges and the .308/7.62x51 NATO is a "full-power" cartridge. It also shows why the military consider both medium-power cartridges 300 meter rounds - when velocity, energy, and drop are considered.

.223 and 7.62x39 have similar power, as said even the tester. But 7.62x39 is heavier, thus mean it loses to 5.56.

>>4861608

>Croatia has made the switch to 5.56*

>>4861167

Jesus fuck, this retard with the AK being based on a german design.

And no, 7.62x39 is not better than 5.56. As proven by tests, 5.56 is better than 7.62x39 as longer range while having similar ballistics with 7.62x39 at close range.

>I want them to stop moving completely. The argument to the contrary is just damage control for a piss-poor round.

No fucking round does that except maybe .50BMG.

How is any of this debate "emotional"?

>>4861588

> strangling the USSR while we out produced them in military equipment from afar just like against Germany in WWII

How does that work now that the cuckservatives have allowed China to kill our steel, auto, manufacturing, and R&D through commodity dumping?

>>4861566

thanks

>>4860692

I think you mean Europian, as some south american shitskins count as white.

>>4861608

>5.56 has more powder which means it's going to be maintain stabler velocity.

thats not how it works, a longer and heavier bullet like 5.45 is generally more stable, meanwhile 5.56 was fucking intentionally designed to be unstable and fragment (which modern M855 rarely does because earlier M193 had pathetic penetration), meanwhile the 5.45 is designed to yaw upon impact with a soft target and inflict more damage that way but still remain stable and penetrate further on hard targets

>The entire Poland and Bulgaria military employ 5.56 AKs. Their 7.62 AK are for revervists.

still in service with the regular army of both, although poland has mostly replaced the 7.62AK, so far Bulgaria has produced more 7.62 AR-M1 AK variants and still has more 7.62 and 5.45 rifles in service than 5.56

>Croatia has always made the switch to 5.56.

but has yet to produce enough VHS rifles to even replace a third of AKs in service

>Which is not an AK, and the Czech is already wanting to replace their rifles with a 5.56.

moving goalposts now, first you claimed "All NATO countries have already adopted to 5.56, while russians switch to using 5.45." and now you say its about AKs

>This means the 5.56 is still more accurate than 7.62 in longer range.

moving goalposts again, you claimed the 5.56 had more ballistic energy at 400M and i provided evidence otherwise and even said that 7.62x39 dropped more

>.223 and 7.62x39 have similar power, as said even the tester. But 7.62x39 is heavier, thus mean it loses to 5.56.

are you fucking retarded? 7.62x39 being a heavier round is an advantage anywhere inside of 300yards, it inherently has better penetration and doesnt deflect as easily though intermediate cover due to being a heavier round

the only time 5.56 is better is when you regularly have infantry engaging targets past 350-500yards, which basically defeats the purpose of switching from battle rifles to assault rifles to begin with and why most militaries have a higher DMR/LMG ratio to infantry than the US did, although that does seem to have changed some after Iraq which also coincides with the major adoption of the M4 and M855 ammo that basically shits all over the original concept of a long range rifle with light bullets anyway

>>4861093

Well you don't come to Finland with 5.56 or 5.45

>>4861741

- There are more variants of 5.56 compared to 5.45, earlier FMJ 5.56 is inferior to 5.56, but

heavier grain 5.56 edges out with more options

- I was wrong in saying all NATO countries have adopted to 5.56, but the fact remains that even the eastern NATO are moving away from 7.62 and are switching to 5.56

- 5.56 is more accurate than 7.62x39 at longer range, while having a little less ballistics and weight less, thus it's superior to 7.62x39.

- and no, 7.62x39 being a heavier round is not an advantage anywhere, because you can just carry more 5.56 than you can carry 7.62x39, thus means you can fire more bullets, which mean you have higher chance to hit. Thus, 5.56 is superior (you carry more bullets and the bullets are more accurate)

>>4861633

You seem very emotional. If you were objective you could admit that you are wrong.

Also, if you want to use the 50 BMG in a rifle, people do that and it works fairly well, but the rate of fire is going to be less due to the recoil. The "assault rifle" should be able to rapidly fire a round that will knock down a man should he be on drugs, etc.

This is why the US went to a 45 pistol before ww2. Then peopke forgot about that and went back to the 9mm, which isn't terrible, not as bad as the 5.56 vs 7.62x39 disparity.

>>4861813

They sell commercial .223 in Finland.

>>4861834

How am I being emotional? How am I wrong?

>The "assault rifle" should be able to rapidly fire a round that will knock down a man should he be on drugs, etc.

No assault rifle bullet kills in one hit. Look at ton of US soldiers who have survived FMJ 7.62x39 bullets.

>This is why the US went to a 45 pistol before ww2.

US made .45ACP, which is already a shortened with reduced power round compared to .45LC (Long Colt) that comes before it.

>Then peopke forgot about that and went back to the 9mm, which isn't terrible, not as bad as the 5.56 vs 7.62x39 disparity.

.45ACP and 9mm have the same goddamn disparity like 5.56 x 7.62x39.

You somehow think that 7.62x39 is super powerful compared to 5.56 even when this dude's ballistics chart prove you wrong.

See>>4861192

I could be wrong but it seems as though if you're close enough that the 55 gr M193 round does its fragmentation shit then it is going to cause huge damage. If you're too far away for the M193 round to have enough velocity to fragment then you're still going to wound someone and they're going to be too far away to be much of a threat to you while wounded.

>implying assault rifles have any real impact in large-scale warfare

>completely disregarding the morale, combined arms and leadership factors

And you people claim to know shit about war.

>>4861926

>all are based on either M193 or M855 though and have nearly identical performance to either

NOT true, for examples:

>Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Special Ball, Long Range, Mk 262 Mod 0/1: 5.56×45mm 77-grain Open-Tipped Match/Hollow-Point Boat-Tail cartridge. Mod 0 features Sierra Matchking bullet, while Mod 1 features either Nosler or Sierra bullet.

>Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm Ball, Enhanced 5.56 mm Carbine, MK318 MOD 0: 5.56×45mm 62-grain Open-Tipped Match Boat-Tail cartridge. Optimized for use with 14-inch barreled weapons like the M4A1 Carbine and MK16 SCAR and designed to penetrate light barriers like windshields or car doors with no loss of accuracy or damage.[71][72] Now designated as Caliber 5.56 mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier.

There are specialized military AND commercial rounds that are superior to M193 and M855 (which is now M855A1 anyway)

>heavier grain 5.56 IS M855, which is basically an outright copy of the 7N6 bullet from earlier 5.45 but still has slightly less penetration, pics related

Adding more powder to M193 does not mean M855 copies fucking 7N6 though. And when we have more penetration, we have actual Anti armor 5.56.

>you seem to be missing the point, if riflemen are engaging past 400M your guys with DMRs/sniper rifles and belt fed weapons are not doing their job,

My point remains the same, an american rifleman can engage reasonably to 400m, while the average Russian soldier can't with their 7.62x39 and have to rely on their DMs. American riflemen can operate on their own without the support of DM, and the machine gunner can share ammunition since M249 also uses 5.56.

>this logic might work if NATO issued more ammunition, standard NATO loadout is 180 rounds 5.56 or 6 magazines,

Source on this? There are cases of US soldiers carrying more than 10 mags, and most of them are mechanized so they never fear running out of ammo.

>by the way, aluminum STANAG magazines are beyond shit tier and the cause of over 50% of stoppages and the USMC actually banned all polymer magazines

That's bad decision, but I don't see this ban having any effect, and the alu mags are improved anyway.

>ballistic energy at range and penetration are not linear, the link above also shows 7.62x39 penetration compared and it outperforms both 5.45 and 5.56

Evidently, penetration does not fucking matter if 7.62x39 cannot hit the enemies in the first place.

>the 5.56fag doesnt seem to get the idea of combined arms with DMRs/LMGs being used to expand the range of infantry and thinks its the job of infantry with assault rifles to engage long range targets

Even the Soviet fucking agree when they phased out 7.62x39, they wanted a ligher round but flatter-round i.e. 5.56, so they made 5.56. It's good that all of your troops have the same effective range so they can support each other.

>>4861926

You are dishonest in using 2012 news.

Get with the fucking times:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/07/army-now-says-no-ban-on-rifle-magazines.html

>>4862001

>so they made 5.45*

My own people dont have my back clearly (instead preferring shitskins who hate them) so i hope russia conquers the world fuck it

>>4852190

Absolutely.

Remember that story about a week back about the Russian SU that buzzed an American surveillance plane? Think that was an isolated event? Think that wasn't a crystal fucking clear declaration of what Russia is positioned and ready to do if NATO forces get anywhere near posting AWACS up in the area to fuck with Russia's anti-air apparatus?

Shit's heating up.

>>4862059

Spetsnaz uses it because it's a strong man-stopper round at close range, kinda like marines uses the M1911.

>>4862001

>NOT true, for examples:

both of those are rarely used

>There are specialized military AND commercial rounds that are superior to M193 and M855 (which is now M855A1 anyway)

M855A1 just recently entered service with the US only and is not standard issue yet, also its even closer to 7N6 by using a longer steel core

>Adding more powder to M193 does not mean M855 copies fucking 7N6 though.

there is far more difference than powder, which is actually not changed

>And when we have more penetration, we have actual Anti armor 5.56.

again uncommon and not standard issue

> American riflemen can operate on their own without the support of DM,

iraq proved this is not feasible, hence the sudden switch to M4s and massive introductions of M240Bs along with MK14s

>and the machine gunner can share ammunition since M249 also uses 5.56.

and yet M249s are issued less frequently now, and 7.62x51 M240s are standard issue

>Source on this? There are cases of US soldiers carrying more than 10 mags, and most of them are mechanized so they never fear running out of ammo.

it varies depending on unit, 180rds is austrialian army standard and most NATO units carry around the same, either way russian troops are required to carry more ammunition than most other nations due to the concept of deep operation and being expected to operate far ahead of frontlines

>Evidently, penetration does not fucking matter if 7.62x39 cannot hit the enemies in the first place.

once again you miss the point and keep moving goalposts

>ven the Soviet fucking agree when they phased out 7.62x39

russian troops in Chechnya requested 7.62x39 due to better cover penetration and knockdown power and 7.62x39 has been used more since, same reason 9x39 has seen increased introduction in russia

>>4862010

havent kept up with that

>>4854326

Western Europe is producing more calories in food than they consume. And Europeans consume way too many calories.

Its some of the most fertile land in the world.

>>4852114

Why would you announce this?

>>4862081

>insert pic of Scandinavian defense ministers

>>4862070

The specialized 5.56 rounds are used by spec-ops, which are by far the most deployed soldiers of the US army, and these rounds are actually available as commercial civie rounds.

Also, there's no plan to replace M249 with M240B nor big procurement for M240B seeing that was adopted BEFORE the M249, M240B is a platoon level weapon while M249 is squad level. If anything, the muhreen wants to replace M249 with a lighter automatic rifle, the M27 IAR, not the M240B.

And no, the main Russian army still employs 5.45x39 far more than 7.62x39, 9x39 is not a standard issue round either.

>>4852114

The russian boogeyman is coming!

Put american military bases in your country quick!!!44!4

>>4852222

>russia takes over paris

>useful leftist idiots slaughtered on spot

>right wing groups start to gain more ground

>putin conquers europe

>all muslims banned from entering it

>>4862073

>Western Europe is producing more calories in food than they consume

only when using tons of fertilizer and pesticides per acre, all made from imported resources

a large part of western european agricultural output is also various meats, all grown using soybeans shipped in from south america

should a naval blockade occur, western europe would have difficulties in managing, probably could if labor was forced to till the fields

however the point was that any invading force would be hard tasked to maintain order in the event of a conquest

>>4862231

Who could even naval blockade Europe?

The brits and the french have the 2nd and 3rd strongest navies in the world.

>>4852114

>overrun the Baltic countries

No fucking shit, does it really take a genius to figure that out? They're tiny nations next to one of the major world powers. Also, they're wrong, the Balts would last 6 hours tops, probably less.

It's like saying the US would defeat Canada within a day or two

This this basically a propaganda piece to justify building US military bases in the Baltic states, It's just buffer state buildup for a war with Russia. We build up the Balts, get them to buy us some time at the cost of their lives so the US can start the draft and send the military to Europe. Another part of this "buy time" plan was also to nuke Germany and Poland so the Russians have to don NBC gear and so they can't use those regions in the war

>>4862279

>The brits and the french have the 2nd and 3rd strongest navies in the world.

Russia has a bigger navy then both France and Britain combined… With better and more modern missile systems…

Go look it up.

>>4862284

Yeah

>>4862279

the original point was that if russia conquerers mainland europe due to their massive Op in land army, they would be fucked then

an anglo naval blockade against a russian dominated mainland europe

>Implying

Economic crisis is near.It's just a way to justify the increase of american bases in EU before shit hits the fan so to keep control.You don't want that angry and afraid people start to congregate to the nationalistic party,right?

>>4862310

Russia has a bigger navy, doesn't mean it's modern nor effective.

It's like the chink, most of them are brown water or rust buckets.

>>4862325

Russia can technically live of its resources, but yeah, Europe would just be deadweight to them since Europe has no resources.

>>4862343

that is the point i make in all of these russia fearmongering threats that pop up a lot lately

(aplied memetics working overtime)

nobody has answered yet, why would russia want to conquerer western europe, regardless of it's ability to do so

>>4862357

I have never thought of that before.

I guess we just live off Nazi and thus NATO propaganda, since Hitler justified his attack on the USSR because da Soviet was gunna conquer Europa.

>>4862343

Don't Russia get most of his agricultural products from EU?At least south euro country?

>>4862357

Consumers? Cheap workforce? Orthodox stronk?

>>4862396

It used to get most of its grain from Ukraine.

But nowadays with modern industry, Siberia alone can feed Russia.

And europeans pay more by virtue of being not occupied by Russia.

>>4862396

The juicy stuff, sure.

With grain, bread and meat, Siberia alone can feed Russia.

Russia, like the US, can be completely independent.

>>4862104

>The specialized 5.56 rounds are used by spec-ops, which are by far the most deployed soldiers of the US army

spec ops are not even 5% of US troops nor the most deployed

> there's no plan to replace M249 with M240B

before iraq the M249 was meant to be standard issue eventually, now it is not

> If anything, the muhreen wants to replace M249 with a lighter automatic rifle, the M27 IAR

lol, not going to happen

vaporware like the XM8 and HK416 that will never see any major usage

>And no, the main Russian army still employs 5.45x39 far more than 7.62x39, 9x39 is not a standard issue round either.

i never claimed 7.62x39 was used more

>>4852671

Ah, good old MG42

>>4862910

*MG3

>>4862333

Wrong. It's actually more modern and effective/trained.

Their missile systems are some of the best and most modern, capable of destroying the intire Turkish navy in 2 days.

Not to mention their horde of submarines.

>>4862374

>implying tanking aren't horribly outdated and useless in modern warfare

Tanks can fuck up everything that can not pierce their armor. Like NATO's Baltic IFVs.

In the northern European plane that is a major advantage.

>>4852147

>stalling on the german border

Stalled by what, refugee caravans?

>>4862847

>spec ops are not even 5% of US troops nor the most deployed

They are though, most involved in the action, not the fucking grunts.

>before iraq the M249 was meant to be standard issue eventually, now it is not

The fuck are you talking about? M249 is standard issue in the Army and serves as a supplementary role in the Marine.

>vaporware like the XM8 and HK416 that will never see any major usage

You realize it's already happening right, muhreen is already switching over to M27 IAR.

>i never claimed 7.62x39 was used more

It just supports my point that the Russian actually agrees with the US philosophy in mass adopting lighter and flatter shooting rounds over heavy and slow rounds like 7.62x39.

>>4863078

>Wrong. It's actually more modern and effective/trained.

What? As said, they are mostly brown waters and rust buckets, they can only go around the Baltic or into the Middle East, never venture far from their territories.

>Their missile systems are some of the best and most modern, capable of destroying the intire Turkish navy in 2 days.

That's because Turkey navy is dogshit and is right next to them. No such thing when the enemies have the better air force and better ships.

>Not to mention their horde of submarines.

Useless in actual warfare when they are countered by NATO's horde of submarines, or blow to bits by torpedos launched by planes.

>Tanks can fuck up everything that can not pierce their armor. Like NATO's Baltic IFVs.

What? Who says IFV cannot pierce armor? They have their TOV for a reason. IFV killed more tanks than tanks did in the Iraq conflict.

>>4865646

most deployed means used in the largest amount you moron, standard issue ammunition is used far more than specialty bullshit

>The fuck are you talking about? M249 is standard issue in the Army and serves as a supplementary role in the Marine.

wrong yet again, also the military has largely stopped buying new M249s and theyre just doing a refurbishment program for old units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun#Users

>You realize it's already happening right, muhreen is already switching over to M27 IAR.

less than 500 so far, and its only supplementing M249 and M240, not replacing either

>It just supports my point that the Russian actually agrees with the US philosophy in mass adopting lighter and flatter shooting rounds over heavy and slow rounds like 7.62x39.

kalashnikov himself said this was due to group think and pressure to emulate the west and he thought it was a poor decision

http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/11069/7-62x39mm-vs-5-45x39mm/

>>4865711

>What? As said, they are mostly brown waters and rust buckets, they can only go around the Baltic or into the Middle East, never venture far from their territories.

you say this just as NATO is shitting all over themselves due to massively increased russian naval deployments, most of which are blue water deployments

http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/russian-submarine-activity-at-highest-level-since-cold-war/

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/world/europe/310116/russia-s-military-delivers-hi-tech-shock-to-west.html

>Useless in actual warfare when they are countered by NATO's horde of submarines, or blow to bits by torpedos launched by planes.

that works both ways, and NATO air defense in general is shit tier

>>4852138

Maybe back in 1985 and the Fulda Gap faggotry back then.

3 days to take the Balltics, sure. 3 days to grind out Poland, Germany and France while fending off America space superiority, techintel dominance and possible nuclear exchanges? Not so much.

Still, Ivan has vastly shorter supply lines for eastern European shenanigans while NATO has thousands of miles.

>>4852190

>>4852213

Hell if you follow RT at all… There are many news articles clearly indicating some of the Russian position on the US stance in Syria.

One article talked about our sudden rampant interests in throwing troops into the fray and the person they were interviewing for Russia made a very obvious indicator; why is NATO trying to force support for boots on the ground in Syria RIGHT along or even directly where Russia is bombing? Heh.

The Russians have been repeatedly trying to work with us in the endeavor of stomping out terrorists in Syria. Which obviously if you have foresight and know what a Neocon is… You know that, that will not happen.

The US wants war with Russia; this has been obvious since the Soviet Union.

>>4852522

You are among the first to be culled in the moment the world turns black.

GOOD LUCK PUTIN

>>4852245

Historic russian territory isn't larger than current territory of Moscow, the rest is formed from annexed city-states and later republics that had unique culture and traditions, now mostly destroyed by russian culture of rape and alcoholism.

There is no such thing as buffer zone when it comes to Russia, give those subhumans your little finger and they'll take the whole arm.

>>4852278

Same reason they always annexed foreign territory, because they are greedy imperialists with no appreciation to anything besides themselves.

>third attempt to post

>>4852163

It must suck for the shills to be constantly called out.

>white power right goys nuke iran hehehehe

>>4865711

>What? As said, they are mostly brown waters and rust buckets, they can only go around the Baltic or into the Middle East, never venture far from their territories.

Their navy is made to be offensive. Their missile systems are uncontests.

A small Russian boat with super-sonic rockets can fuck up many aircraft carriers.

>That's because Turkey navy is dogshit and is right next to them. No such thing when the enemies have the better air force and better ships.

Russia's navy is superior to all but the Americans.

>Useless in actual warfare when they are countered by NATO's horde of submarines, or blow to bits by torpedos launched by planes.

You mean America's submarines, maybe.

>What? Who says IFV cannot pierce armor? They have their TOV for a reason. IFV killed more tanks than tanks did in the Iraq conflict.

You are thinking of Tank-Destroyers. or TDIFVs/TDAPCs. In the Baltics you have almost none.

>>4887723

>A small Russian boat with super-sonic rockets can fuck up many aircraft carriers.

High age bullshit, aircraft carrier is protected by cruisers as well as an airforce, any ships coming close enough for missile range would be intercepted. It would take orbital bombardment to destroy a CAG.

>Russia's navy is superior to all but the Americans.

The french and brits are superior in quality and quantity.

>You are thinking of Tank-Destroyers. or TDIFVs/TDAPCs. In the Baltics you have almost none.

Every NATO IFV at the moment have the option to take a TOW missile, that would penetrate and destroy any modern tank.

>>4887785

>The french and brits are superior in quality and quantity.

Proof?

>Every NATO IFV at the moment have the option to take a TOW missile, that would penetrate and destroy any modern tank.

The Russians have more tanks then NATO has TOWs

>>4852114

The small baltic states are pretty used to being conquered by now. They've mastered sticking their ass in the air and letting the conquerors have whatever they want

>>4887798

>Proof?

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/

Though, this is 2014 news, I don't know if the ruskies have finally fixed their shits.

>The Russians have more tanks then NATO has TOWs

Not true, the ruskies have about 12 000 tanks (about 1000 or 2000 that can still spearhead), we have more TOW missiles than that.

>>4887929

>reuters

The article just states arbitrary opinions.

>Not true, the ruskies have about 12 000 tanks (about 1000 or 2000 that can still spearhead), we have more TOW missiles than that.

Even if you do, you don't have enough TOWIFVs and specially not on the baltics.

>>4887952

>The article just states arbitrary opinions.

It has images, sources and everything.

>The article just states arbitrary opinions.

This maybe a problem, but the hundreds of IFV they can muster up will hold enough times until the air force kicks in.

We need to get some Russkie hatememes going

>>4887976

What they state are small, old examples of some old ships the Russians had. Not much.

> but the hundreds of IFV they can muster up will hold enough times

Not really. 3 days. And Russia has complete air superiority in the area.

>>4888023

>What they state are small, old examples of some old ships the Russians had. Not much.

Kuznetsov is the only carrier the ruskies even have, and their only way to force project even if they do battles in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and it's old and outdated.

>Not really. 3 days. And Russia has complete air superiority in the area.

One day is enough to muster the airforce, and no, it doesn't. The russian airforce is piss poor compared to the local brits and french, not to mention America.

We are doing bad versus ISIS not because our military are bad, but because our policies are bad and we are not trying to destroy ISIS at all.

>>4888050

>Kuznetsov is the only carrier the ruskies even have, and their only way to force project even if they do battles in the Atlantic and the Pacific,

But they don't need to project in the Atlantic or Pacific.

>The russian airforce is piss poor compared to the local brits and french, not to mention America.

Wrong. Even if they were they could move their entire airforce to the baltics in time.

> but because our policies are bad and we are not trying to destroy ISIS at all.

Yes, I know. But it still shows the Russian airforce is much better then NATO thought.

>>4888081

>could

*Couldn't.

>>4888081

>But they don't need to project in the Atlantic or Pacific.

If they try to blockade Europe at all, they sorta have to, due to the presence of of more than 3 Carrier Assault Group in the vicinity.

>Wrong. Even if they were they could move their entire airforce to the baltics in time.

Let's be real, the ruskies have really good bombers, true. But they haven't engaged in air battle in decades now.

ISIS is mainly ground target where bombers suffice with good intel, NATO actually has good interceptors, that shit wouldn't fly.

Honestly this isn't surprising. Ever since the collapse of the USSR, many NATO countries have been reducing defence budgets and injecting needless political garbage into the military which fucks both it's cohesion and it's purpose.

Russia has not had the luxury of their economical and political situation not imploding. For the past two decades, due a mixture of seperatist movements, political volatility, and being quite vulnerable compared to what it was, there is a reason why their military has become better then many of their European counterparts, to prevent the country from fragmenting.

Don't get me wrong, Russia is a hell-hole and it's military has some really fucked up practices. However, it's military has not been compromised in a way many NATO members have been.

>>4852748

Jesus Christ what a pathetic number of MBT's, I seriously hope Germany keeps a large reserve in storage because in my humble opinion, any less than a thousand main battle tanks for any serious army is fucking inexcusable.

Yeah, it's perfectly possible that you have the best fucking tank on the battlefield that will just shrug off enemy shells while lighting up the enemy as if they were made out of matches but until that first day of battle, it's much better to have a lot of sub-optimal vehicles to keep the enemy occupied and your troops supported.

A tank should be semi-disposable, like the M4 Sherman but they shouldn't be complete crude crap like the "muh sloped armour" T-34.

>>4888498

breddy good ID

>>4889303

> any less than a thousand main battle tanks for any serious army is fucking inexcusable.

The only European armies with over 1000 MBTs are Poland and Greece lol and half of them are also M48 Pattons.

>>4888102

>If they try to blockade Europe at all

I didn't suggest they would.

>But they haven't engaged in air battle in decades now.

We will only know if or when it happens then.

>>4888023

>What they state are small, old examples of some old ships the Russians had. Not much.

this

>Not really. 3 days. And Russia has complete air superiority in the area.

this, even the latest patriot missile systems have barely a third of the range of the S-400 as far as SAMs go

>>4888050

>Kuznetsov is the only carrier the ruskies even have, and their only way to force project even if they do battles in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and it's old and outdated.

Their main way to project power is with missile cruisers which have S-300F air defense systems, and massive amounts of ASMs, carriers at this point are simply a liability

>>4888102

>But they haven't engaged in air battle in decades now.

neither has the US, the last major air battle NATO participated in was 1991 Desert storm 25 years ago, nothing else has involved even a small percentage of any nations air force since, meanwhile Russian advisers and pilots have also participated in small conflicts like the Eritrean-Ethiopian war and Georgia

Start WW3 already! I am waiting. At least it's over then!

>>4889303

>Jesus Christ what a pathetic number of MBT's, I seriously hope Germany keeps a large reserve in storage because in my humble opinion

only around 150 in reserve

and its especially ridiculous considering Germany in the early 90s after inheriting most east German military hardware had one of the largest tank armies in the world and not only had some of the most advanced NATO equipment but some of the most advanced Warsaw pact armor and aircraft also, now Turkey has the largest NATO military outside the US by a wide margin

https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23309#startofcomments

>GP Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15: "IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US. Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons. In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons.

>When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own.

I am disappointed that I am in Australia. >>4852114

>>4852114

Three days is way too long, try three hours or does that includes Poland invasion.

at this point there is nothing bad about this

>>4894765

>INB4 some idiot who doesn't understand grouping tries to say the AR is more accurate due to being in the center

>the anon trying to argue that TOW missiles and other anti tank missiles will rekt Russia

You know they have anti missile systems for their tanks/IFVs/APCs/etc. nowadays that make things like a TOW missile obsolete right? You do know that Russia and Israeli are the leaders of such technology, have actually used it, while the West is very behind right?

There is a reason why the T90s in the Ukraines are rekting everything those tatars are throwing at them.

>>4891291

>Their main way to project power is with missile cruisers which have S-300F air defense systems, and massive amounts of ASMs, carriers at this point are simply a liability

Missiles cannot project power, unless you seriously think missiles can carry troops. And no, missiles alone cannot destroy carrier battle groups simply because CAG have their own missile defense.

>neither has the US, the last major air battle NATO participated in was 1991 Desert storm 25 years ago, nothing else has involved even a small percentage of any nations air force since,

Iraq has small-tier air battle that ends up in complete US victory.

The last time the ruskies went against an air force, it was the Georgian, and it took them more than 2 days for complete air superiority, this means the timeframe is enough to muster all NATO airforce.

>>4891291

>>4891291

>Their main way to project power is with missile cruisers which have S-300F air defense systems, and massive amounts of ASMs, carriers at this point are simply a liability

Missiles cannot project power, unless you seriously think missiles can carry troops. And no, missiles alone cannot destroy carrier battle groups simply because CAG have their own missile defense.

>neither has the US, the last major air battle NATO participated in was 1991 Desert storm 25 years ago, nothing else has involved even a small percentage of any nations air force since,

Iraq has small-tier air battle that ends up in complete US victory.

The last time the ruskies went against an air force, it was the Georgian, and it took them more than 2 days for complete air superiority, this means the timeframe is enough to muster all NATO airforce.

>>4852748

>>4852770

>>4852774

>>4889303

>>4891151

>>4891552

France an UK have ON PAPER less than 260 MBT.

The numbers are from wiki and shit and are utterly unreliable. They count stuff that was produced and has long been scrapped or sold to whatever Sheik needed to compensate.

The same is even more true for Germany.

KMW BARELY PRODUCED ANY NEW TANKS. They make kits, a lot. They upgrade, a lot.

But the number of actual tank production (you know you take raw materials you make a new tank) contracts since the cold war can be counted on one hand.

Yet somehow everyone and their mum have been buying Leo's 2…

Do you think they appeared out of thin air?

It's the German tank stockpile, and since they've announced their fusion with France Nexter it means only ONE thing.

Neither of those two used tank-salesman have anything left to sale.

De facto it's dubious that any of the three can muster 200 MBT each.

All the tank formations are at 68 tanks.

No one has more than 4. Nearly none of them are at 100% availability.

>But Anon doesn't a Russian INFANTRY regiment has 18 tanks, and a shit load of 20mm ATGM equipped IFVs? And they litterally have hundreds of those? Then they have their tanks formations! And since all those Europeans tanks can't actually teleport themselves, won't they end up arriving in waves? Making them from a 1 VS 5 on paper to a 1 VS 20 on the field?

Yeah but, that's not the worse.

The worse is the artillery.

"Artillery is bad anon, it's a terrible terrible weapon of war, and in all of those peacekeeping missions they're never used, so they cost a lot and they're never EVER used. And evil. And we have packs of sand niggers to give benefits." Have said all the politicians in Europe since 1991.

If you think the number of tanks is pathetic, check the numbers of guns…

Europe has the bare minimum number of planes (half of them are actually older than what's online in VKS which is fucking challenge, half of UK and Germany airforces are Tornados. France still is mostly on Mirages, a shitload of them being Disco era F1), a pathetic number of tanks and an abysmal number of artillery guns (it's not 1 to 5 with Russia it's 1 to 20 maybe 50 on paper, you maybe able reach 1 to 1 if you count everything stockpiled in the EU plus everything stockpiled by Canada and the US. Which is a lot, and stockpiled, not on-line).

Yet the morons politicians who grow up in the cold war and started their career in the complete delusion that they had won the cold war, somehow, keep acting like NATO is a great military power.

The U.S. is a great military power.

There is what an infantry combat brigade on stryker, 16 tanks (old M1) in Germany and that's about it? Planes? The USAF generals themselves says that Russia can bring down anything flying lower than 25 000m without anyone being capable to do shit.

The only thing this mad quagmire stays upon is the (retarded) hope that Washington is ready to see the full extermination of it's population in thermonuclear warfare to save places they can't even place on a fucking map.

>>4895079

>>4895285

I would like to see how them work.

Last time, the Bradley destroyed those T-72 good.

>>4895479

No one is even denying that the germs have a shit-tier army there.

The main point is the frogs and the brits and the poles, who could somewhat muster a defense until the US comes in.

Anti-war faggots fuck our militaries up, nothing new, while the neo nazis keep blaming the US for "occupying" Germany.

>>4852114

This is a non-story.

They are talking about what would happen if Russia threw everything it had at Latvia and Estonia. Two countries with a combined population of about 3 million.

Of course they'd be shit on.

>>4895759

>see MC2002, where exactly that was done with the addition of suicide attacks based on Iran in 2002 which had much weaker systems in far smaller numbers than Russia even then

And this kind of suicide attack would work now with all the cruisers, air group that protect the CAG? If these suicide attack work, why do the rukies bother to expand their war fleet? Why not just make a shitton of missile boat?

>Desert Storm you dumb fuck, Desert storm involved nearly 3000 aircraft and has been the largest US air force operation since Vietnam

Iraq II also has air to air combat though, against the small Iraq air force.

>Iraqi monkey model T-72s

Oh, this sounds like the slavaboo talk back in halfchan /k/.

>even Syrian T-72AVs with only 560MM RHA can withstand TOW hits to the turret as seen by multiple videos of them surviving it, let alone a bradley

Proof?

>>4895759

This post was pure savage.

>>4895889

>And this kind of suicide attack would work now with all the cruisers, air group that protect the CAG?

thats exactly what they did if you could read

>Why not just make a shitton of missile boat?

the russian surflace fleet basically is all missile boats and cruisers

>Iraq II also has air to air combat though, against the small Iraq air force.

for about 6 days during which the Iraqi airforce was mainly concerned with trying to escape to Iran

>Proof?

>>4895594

>The main point is the frogs and the brits and the poles, who could somewhat muster a defense until the US comes in.

No they can't there is one line of possible defense if Russia gets serious.

You get Polish forces (which is the only new country of NATO that has actually spent some of his EU subsides in the defense, instead of just his politicans swiss bank account) to

1) Not attack Kaliningrad (good luck).

2) Have them pull back essentially almost to the German border, leaving their entire country to Russia (good luck) because their entire country… is Russian controlled airspace (and therefore not only you have to convince them, you also have to hope they will be some left once they reach the border).

Then maybe you can win enough time for the Brits France and maybe Spanish (if they're somehow convinced to come with, which is highly doubtful)

In the South it's the same thing for Romania only worse. Because yeah there is Ukraine in between but yeah no there is nothing in between.

First you need to convince Italy, Czech republic and cie, to go help them (good luck), then you need to convince them to withdraw behind the Carpathians, leaving their capital, etc… to Russia.

Then you need to fucking pray and hope the great kebab remover won't pounce on the occasion to serve some payback, and Bulgaria and Macedonia to not stab us in the back.

So if you manage to get all that right, we can wait for the US.

But Moscow would have won. Completely. Becasue they will just call for a cease fire, threaten nuclear war. And UK, Germany, France and the US… will be perfectly happy to sign whatever they want. Especially if Russia demands are reasonable.

There is a reason why eastern Europe always get fucked.

It's called geography.

The West won't sacrifice shit for them (nor should they), the East is immensely more powerful than they are.

It's sad but that's reality.

>>4896196

also

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d3_1445201540 from multiple angles with no cook off, meaning no turret penetration

>>4896274

anti-missile lasers arent going to help when there is 40 coming at you with 25 seconds to impact and the laser takes over 15 seconds to destroy a missile, conventional CIWS systems have proved much more effective in all testing except against low numbers of long range targets, they are good against ballistic missiles though which is what china uses against ships

>>4896196

>thats exactly what they did if you could read

This test was conducted over 10 years ago, a lot of things in 10 years, missiles, weapons, even the number of protection that the carriers have.

>the russian surflace fleet basically is all missile boats and cruisers

Which is still a lower number than the missile boats and cruisers that the US possess. And if so, why do the ruskies even bother fielding carriers and battleships?

>for about 6 days during which the Iraqi airforce was mainly concerned with trying to escape to Iran

So? That's still more air experiences than the ruskies ever had.

>Proof?

That's T72's ATGM, not even a TOW.

Meanwhile, a TOW from the rebel actually destroyed Assad's T72:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/antitank-weapons/t-72-tank-no-match-for-tow/2343956870001

>>4896338

Let them have western Europe.

There is jackshit there but hungry people to feed.

A naval blockade would mean the ruskies would get tired of occupying that place and wasting money for nothing.

>>4896414

>Naval blockade.

Son Russia has no port 6 months of the year.

Russia is in the SCO with China, India and cie. Which are more than 50% of the PIB of the planet.

Meanwhile Europe is completely dependent on Russian resources to run it's own economy.

They can go without Loreal shampoo and Mercedes.

We can't go without heating.

>>4896474

>Son Russia has no port 6 months of the year.

Now they do tho

>>4896474

I'm saying letting Russia has Europe.

Block them there, let the occupied european scums bleed the ruskies dry with their oil.

>>4896499

If they take Europe, Europe would still buy the oil as client states.

But America would lose Europe, and 95% of it's valueable allies.

And Russia would rule the world.

gg no re

>>4896381

>even the number of protection that the carriers have.

actually anti-missile CIWS systems havent

>Which is still a lower number than the missile boats and cruisers that the US possess.

but still more than any other navy and the Russian navy doesn't need to patrol the whole world, they mostly operate in the Black Sea, Arctic, and Pacific where they are protected by land based ASM systems

>And if so, why do the ruskies even bother fielding carriers and battleships?

battleships have been dead since the 50s, there are battle cruisers but they are just oversized missile cruisers, also for what its worth the Russians mainly seem to operate a carrier just to say they do, its not very important to their current naval strategy and is really just money that could be better spent

>That's T72's ATGM, not even a TOW.

>That's T72's ATGM

>T72's ATGM

its clear you dont know that those words mean, also that is very obviously a TOW

>>4896414

Russia has no purpose in taking Western Europe, the only reason they even care about the baltics is for a land bridge to Kaliningrad, likewise the only strategic goal for taking Ukraine is a land bridge to Transnistria

>>4896474

>Son Russia has no port 6 months of the year.

both Vladivostok and Murmansk ports are now open year round due to melting ice and more icebreakers, along with Kaliningrad that would be nearly impossible to blockade, not to mention Crimea and Syria

>>4896517

Europe isn't really valuable allies to America.

They have done jackshit.

Better let the ruskies and the europeans run out of oil together.

>>4896563

>actually anti-missile CIWS systems havent

We have more than CIWS to counter missiles. We can destroy missile boats before they even launch their payload on carrier via bomber planes.

>but still more than any other navy and the Russian navy doesn't need to patrol the whole world, they mostly operate in the Black Sea, Arctic, and Pacific where they are protected by land based ASM systems

The US Navy is needed for force projection all over the globe. The ruskies cannot do the same thing, at best they can do is counter the US navy at key areas, not being superior to it.

>also for what its worth the Russians mainly seem to operate a carrier just to say they do, its not very important to their current naval strategy and is really just money that could be better spent

The ruskies need the carriers and their battleships to even deploy at all, since their airlifting capacity is low and their missile boats/cruisers cannot transport troops. And they did spend their money on the frogs building the Mistral ships, which they didn't get.

>its clear you dont know that those words mean, also that is very obviously a TOW

We have confirmed videos on both results, T-72 being destroyed by TOW, and not. So best it's a draw, depending on the angles of the shot.

>>4896563

>>4896563

>actually anti-missile CIWS systems havent

We have more than CIWS to counter missiles. We can destroy missile boats before they even launch their payload on carrier via bomber planes.

>but still more than any other navy and the Russian navy doesn't need to patrol the whole world, they mostly operate in the Black Sea, Arctic, and Pacific where they are protected by land based ASM systems

The US Navy is needed for force projection all over the globe. The ruskies cannot do the same thing, at best they can do is counter the US navy at key areas, not being superior to it.

>also for what its worth the Russians mainly seem to operate a carrier just to say they do, its not very important to their current naval strategy and is really just money that could be better spent

The ruskies need the carriers and their battleships to even deploy at all, since their airlifting capacity is low and their missile boats/cruisers cannot transport troops. And they did spend their money on the frogs building the Mistral ships, which they didn't get.

>its clear you dont know that those words mean, also that is very obviously a TOW

We have confirmed videos on both results, T-72 being destroyed by TOW, and not. So best it's a draw, depending on the angles of the shot.>its clear you dont know that those words mean, also that is very obviously a TOW

>>4896667

>We have more than CIWS to counter missiles. We can destroy missile boats before they even launch their payload on carrier via bomber planes.

this is why Russia mainly chooses to operate in the Black sea and near coastal areas except with submarines, in the open sea with no land around for thousands of miles the US would most likely be at an advantage but in the Black sea, Persian gulf, or now in the China sea you have to deal with not only ships but massive amounts of land based anti-ship missiles and air defense, neither side can move ships or launch aircraft without the other immediately knowing and mach 3 cruise missiles will arrive faster than F-18s

essentially it turns the situation into a knife fight in a phone booth, youre going to see a lot of damage on both sides

>The ruskies need the carriers and their battleships to even deploy at all, since their airlifting capacity is low and their missile boats/cruisers cannot transport troops.

Thats not how it works, all navies use dedicated landing ships and not cruisers to transport troops, and Russia actually has some of the most landing ships in service of any navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amphibious_warfare_vessels_of_the_Russian_Navy

>And they did spend their money on the frogs building the Mistral ships, which they didn't get.

Sold to Egypt which is a Russian ally and Russia was refunded for what they spent, not to mention France already transferred the blueprints and machinery to build them to Russia which they still have

>So best it's a draw, depending on the angles of the shot.

i never said T-72s could not be penetrated by a TOW, you asked for proof they could survive a TOW hit

>>4896871

Russian navy main strength is defensive, not offensive, even then the combined strength of the US Navy would destroy the russian navy and create a beachhead into Russia, the Russian navy cannot do the same thing on US soil.

Also, US carrier groups are the mobile hot points for resupplying fuel for both landing ships and transport copters, something that the russian lacks. I don't think they are just gonna run landing ships straight to the Americas.

Also, it's not like the ruskies can build the Mistral, even with the machinery and the refunded money.

The fact in one example they survived a TOW hit doesn't mean TOW is useless against them, in fact, the TOWs used by the rebels are pretty old shit, but so are T-72.

>>4897074

>even then the combined strength of the US Navy would destroy the russian navy and create a beachhead into Russia

lolno, and now you have started just making up baseless shit

> resupplying fuel for both landing ships and transport copters, something that the russian lacks.

Most Russian cruisers do have helicopters, and they have lo lack of supply ships…

Just because not all Russian fleets have a carrier does not mean they don't operate in battle groups.

they are already building a ship class based on the Mistral design called the Priboy class, that is even larger

> I don't think they are just gonna run landing ships straight to the Americas.

not even at the height of the cold war did Russia/USSR ever have any plans of invading the mainland US, nor do they have any purpose to do so

>the TOWs used by the rebels are pretty old shit

They're brand fucking new TOW-2s and TOW-2Bs straight from Saudi Arabia, in fact they Saudis don't even have any original TOWs

>>4897176

>lolno, and now you have started just making up baseless shit

Nothing baseless about it, the US Navy would crush the russian navy based on strength alone.

>Most Russian cruisers do have helicopters, and they have lo lack of supply ships…

Cruisers cannot substitute for carriers, cannot support as much as troops nor helicopters.

>Just because not all Russian fleets have a carrier does not mean they don't operate in battle groups.

Smaller battle groups with even smaller airforce.

>they are already building a ship class based on the Mistral design called the Priboy class, that is even larger

News to me.

>not even at the height of the cold war did Russia/USSR ever have any plans of invading the mainland US, nor do they have any purpose to do so

Nice to know that Russia has no way of defeating America then, save for MAD.

As long as America stands, NATO stands.

>They're brand fucking new TOW-2s and TOW-2Bs straight from Saudi Arabia, in fact they Saudis don't even have any original TOWs

Duly noted, still as the Syrian conflict shows, the TOW are still capable anti-tank weapons.

>>4897496

>Nothing baseless about it, the US Navy would crush the russian navy based on strength alone.

in open seas maybe, but within 600Mi of Russian mainland not a chance though due to far too many anti-ship and anti-air missiles, Russia has by far the most dense anti-air and anti-sea network of any country

>Cruisers cannot substitute for carriers, cannot support as much as troops nor helicopters.

which is a complete non-issue when the only areas Russia faces a conflict in is within flight range of Russia itself

>with even smaller airforce.

Russia/USSR has always operated a smaller air force than NATO even during the cold war, but they have also always operated a much better and larger air defense system, even today Russia has more SAM systems that all of NATO combined

and on a per system basis, even the latest patriots have less range than S-200s from the 60s, let alone S-400s or S-500s

>Nice to know that Russia has no way of defeating America then, save for MAD.

The same applies to the US with Russia

>As long as America stands, NATO stands.

which doesn't apply to Europe, not that Russia has any real reason to invade western Europe

>the TOW are still capable anti-tank weapons.

that they are, as shown by both Syria with its various Russian tanks, and Yemen where the Saudis are losing US M1A2s and Bradleys to Iranian "Toophan" TOW copies by the dozen

but why i even brought up T-72s was the Syrian IR jammer system in >>4895285 which has shown to be effective against TOWs

>>4897674

Oh well, let's end this discussion then.

Russia cannot touch America, America can touch Russia but under heavy damage doing so.

There's really no point in arguing further since East vs West warfare is just mutual destruction or huge blows on both sides.

Let's just be rivals.

>>4865815

>3 days to take the Balltics

Yes

[/spoiler]Baltics are "trip wire" forces to kick off the real party[/spoiler]

>>4897751

Sorry Baltic bros. I fucked up the spoiler..you're all gonna die.

>>4897705

>There's really no point in arguing further since East vs West warfare is just mutual destruction or huge blows on both sides.

pretty much

>>4896565

>Europe isn't really valuable allies to America.

Besides the entirety of US world diplomatic power, trade and military allies.

Russia would be able to sanction the USA instead of the other way around, hilarious.

Without NATO and the EU the USA is irrelevant. That's why the USA always gets into European wars.

>Better let the ruskies and the europeans run out of oil together.

Forgetting they would outlast you.

Topkek.

>>4862112

That pic. Holy cow. How the fuck can you be DEFENSE MINISTER OF A FUCKING NATION without having any experience in the front lines? HAH!

Why don't USA and Russia try to be allies?

>>4898162

The only allies that are worth a shit in Europe is britcuck, frog and polen.

The economic boom of Europe comes from the fact they are rich consumers who buy international goods, this means nothing if America goes back to isolationist mode.

And no, Russia cannot sanction America without a good navy to blockade America.

>>4899731

Because USA doesn't want. They have a pipe dream of bending over Russia.

>>4899807

They used to be allies before the USSR. Why would they bend over Russia for?

>>4899807

basically this, there was actually an opportunity during the 90s for Russia to actually join NATO, but the US kept insisting for Russia to further disarm and allow more independence to its own federal territories inside Russia

>>4899842

1.It is one of their two competitors (the other being China).

2.It does not espouse cuckold values and degeneracy.

These things are common knowledge. It is widely said in American establishment circles.

>>4899887

Spot on. When US politicans say they want Russia as an ally what they really mean is "we want a passive Russia that spreads her legs and becomes our whore". I guess every Russian must tune off when they hear it because they know the meaning.

>>4899954

Well the world doesn't want to be drag into Russia-USA war and US military is weakening itself so why would any countries want to join in?

>>4899760

Greece is decent too but can't project force for shit.

>>4900131

>US military is weakening itself ?

Even with completely 100% cuckheld personnel and money-sinks like F-35 (and the soon to be 6th gen fighter program) it will take Murca at least one century to be actually threatened by China and Russia combined in conventional warfare.

>>4900201

That is way too much delusion. USA is already threatened by both.

China is deploying forces on South China Sea in several islands - for which they have legitimate claims by the way - and all Americucks can do is chest thump by sailing a ship anear.

Russia is destroying USA on the middle east essentially ending their dominance on that region. Russians are winning in Ukraine.

>>4900310

Until the war comes on America's shore, America is not threatened.

>>4900310

Until the war comes to America's shore, America is not threatened.

>>4900310

>USA is already threatened by both.

No. USA's projection of force is somewhat threatened.

The only thing the US cannot do at this point is to conventionally wreck Russia in its soil or safely antagonize it in neighboring countries.

>>4899731

cuz jews

>>4900310

>china threatens the US

Holy fucking shit, you are a goddamn retard.

>Russia is destroying USA on the middle east essentially ending their dominance on that region.

WHO GIVES A SHIT. That’s globalist nonsense we don’t care about.

>Russians are winning in Ukraine.

NO ONE CARES. Neither of those places are the US.

>>4900331

Who told you war isn't coming to your shores? The masculine alpha Russian and Chinese forces will wipe the floor with your cucked beta faggot female platoons. The POW female soldiers will turn into their comfort women.

>>4900578

They have to beat the US navies, the airforce, and even then have to deal with the armed populace, and even then there are still the nukes.

I'm sorry, the entire world on Earth can't beat America in a total war due to our populace, our geographical advantage and our current military assets.

The only thing that can beat America is Civil War 2.0.

>>4861124

>thought he was taking down roosevelt and putting up hitler for a brief moment

>realized my error

I felt my heart flutter and then immediately get crushed. What has /pol/ done to me?

>>4900157

>Greece

>Fighting Russia to defend the EU and Turkey.

Yeah that's gonna happen.

Right about when Jesus walk the earth again, pig sprout wings and the release of that cool new duo album of Elvis and Michael Jackson.

If they stay neutral that would be already nice.

>>4860522

wasent it Hugo Schmeisser who created the ak-47 and it also strongly resembles Schmeisser's StG44

>>4901537

Nope.

AK47 takes more from the Garand's gas piston while retains the STG's aesthetics and features (pistol grip, stock).

>>4901550

ahhh interesting.

>>4852163

>Iran

>not white

Topkek

I admit Arabs raped the Iranian genepool but originally they were Indo-Europeans and white. Khominei is pretty white guy.

>>4852671

is that a FAMAS?

>>4901537

>>4901550

The soviet took the German idea of the 7.92 Kurz for their 7.62x39, along with the guys that made the cartridge. They never hid it either.

But the AK has nothing to do with the STG from an engineering point of view. You could say that the exterior design is somewhat similar… as are all assault rifle. All closed bolt look similar, all battle rifles look similar, all SMG look similar…

Also we say "it's closer to a M1" as in a German Shepard looks closer to a St Bernard than to a Chihuahua. If the M1 was the same as an AK there wouldn't have been a M-14 or M-16…

>>4894821

He's saying the opposite. I think.

>>4895285