8e4319 No.548169
Can somebody explain why are Germans so slav tier bad at tank design?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOeDzRo6HXQ
242c3a No.548178
The Döner from my favorite kurdish establishment looks so much better than this shit.
He also has a robot so he is a high tech kurdi now
41faf1 No.548180
But slavs are world champions at tank design???
8e4319 No.548186
>>548180
World championship in teh turret launch height is not a thing to be proud of.
5602fc No.548189
>>548169
>why are Germans so slav tier bad at tank design?
They let their engineers run wild in WW2, just gave them a briefing that said 'build something awesome!' as the only direction they were given. Watching those overbuilt mad science tier tanks get knocked out by a soviet agricultural tractor with a few armour plates and a potato cannon (which the Slavs insisted on calling a T-34 tank for some reason) gave them a deep seated trauma they haven't been able to shift yet - which is having a debilitating effect on their tank engineers to this day. This, working in concert with modern German self hatred and 'pride in shame', is responsible for the shit tier tanks they're producing now. Also, to be blunt, after ww2 Slavic tanks weren't exactly shit tier.
f73069 No.548191
>>548186
american tank turrets are just too heavy to fly out
5097c2 No.548225
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Wow cnc kebab machine. Arabian scholars really pusing humanity forward.
07826b No.548249
>>548225
how fucked would the US be if they had to fight someone competent like the kurds?
5d4a36 No.548253
>>548249
Not very fucked, considering the fact that they would have complete air, land, sea superiority.
>wow the kurds blew up a gook tank with a ATGM who would have thought
The real question is how big would your brain be if you didn't have fetal alcohol syndrome
266e42 No.548271
>>548189
That's because tank battle is not decided by which tank is better built or designed, it's decided by statistics and math. It's a universal truth that better made equipment is exponentially more expensive while only asympthotically better. When number of units involved is more than a handful, cheap and simple wins by a wide margin. That's because even if something that's 50% cheaper performs 50% worse (which in reality is not nearly the case), simply fielding twice as many units at a time gives you well over 100% advantage (in a 100x100% vs 200x50% battle the advanced side quickly loses everything while the cheap side only loses 35%).
But you of course will never choose to field an easily destroyable cheap hunk of shit even if it means your chances of survival are much better and fewer people will die grand total. Loss aversion is among many, MANY retarded things people do out of thinking it'll improve the situation that ultimately result in an even worse outcome.
4b0cc6 No.548272
>>548169
Daily reminder that most Turkish leos are suppose to have an armor package equivalent to 2a6 and not 2a4 as most sources claims…
Daily reminder that the slow moving unstable missiles with red flares are either AT-4 Spigot or AT-5 Spandrel (or the iranian/chinese clone of), I.E. 70's soviet missiles.
Daily reminder that even export T-72 from the Syrian army don't disintegrate like that, that's T-55/T-62 level…
6aaa1d No.548274
>>548271
This is completely untrue. In tanks, in like most hardware, it's entirely about the 'sweet spot'. You want to spend the least you can on the most you can. That's why the T-34 was so successful, it actually had a few cutting edge (for the time) tank design elements which could be added to the tank for extremely cheap.
That's the key. Cost/Benefit analysis and finding when something costs more then it gives you. There is a reason all infantry doesn't use Grease Guns and Stens. Tanks are the same way. Proper tank design goes 'Add a radio? How much does a radio cost? What does it let us do that we can't do without it?' The answers are, it's damn cheap, it lets you coordinate with other tanks and infantry, increasing your effectiveness multiple times over, and without it you not only can't do that, but you are even more blind then normal, because you aren't being fed information by your supporting infantry and scouting vehicles.
Never go for 'lots of the cheapest'. The correct answer is to balance effectiveness and cost.
Your comments also ignore the fact that experienced, veteran soldiers of all types, be they infantry, tank crews, airmen or whatever, are often worth many times over what their kit is worth. It's not sentimental loss aversion, a trained, experienced, competent soldier is worth his weight in gold.
266e42 No.548277
>>548274
I didn't specifically write "better value" because simpler design is not about making it cheaper so you can buy more units, it's about making it faster, on lower tech equipment and by less skilled workers (which does all factors towards reducing the cost ultimately).
Well trained regular army is dick waving. Experienced soldiers burn in phosphorus just the same as recruits do. The only reason it even exists is because since WW2 there were no even-handed conflicts, it was always guerilla with local poorfags armed with old AKs going against some big ass country with superior numbers. It's fine if you're not doing any serious operations with these guys, when there's no real risk that they will die. But if a real war breaks out, they all gonna die few days in and you will shit your pants and surrender.
266e42 No.548278
>>548277
Which is to say, it IS loss aversion. May also be sunk cost on top of that, too.
022b8c No.548279
>>548277
>That flag
>That post
790264 No.548281
>>548277
This works, when someone is marching to moscow and you have a few years to get the gears working. Modern warfare is so fast that a conflict (with a nation state) is usually over in less than 2 years in a prolonged war.
7dce09 No.548293
>>548249
how fucked would the US be if they had to fight someone who thinks the Kurds are competent at anything but dying to Turks, who are also incompetent
266e42 No.548338
>>548281
It won't be taking two years to BTFO half a million people in a modern symmetrical conflict. It didn't took very long back then, either.
ce0e69 No.548339
Aren't they old models? And Abrams have been lost like that too.
4b0cc6 No.548350
>>548339
>Aren't they old models?
The missiles? Yes those are from long before the Leo2 and M1 existed.
Pic related…
5602fc No.548356
>Only Challenger 2 lost in combat was a Friendly Fire incident where another Challenger accidentally fired upon another.
>The only thing that can kill a Challenger, is a Challenger.
>UK Tanks: First and still the best.
ddc897 No.548361
>>548169
Forget that, why does it sound like Kizuna`s AI is narrating the video?
8e4319 No.548386
>>548356
>if we don't use our tank then no one will find out that it sucks
38bfb1 No.548388
>>548386
>if we don't use our tank
5602fc No.548392
>>548386
Hey, I'm glad to hear that Iraq and Afghanistan never happened. It's slightly worrying that my delusions are that widespread and detailed, but it's probably better that way.
dc218d No.548393
>>548356
Several chally 2 got fucked up by RPGs in Iraq.
The only tank that do well against missiles rockets are the Leclercs (which so far have only been pierced once in Yemen, despite multiple mobility kill and multiple ATGM hits) mainly because German/US/Brit tank development concentrated in creating armor that could withstand other tanks guns projectile to fight with soviets in the fulda gap, while the french actually read the action reports coming from the middle east (arabs/jews wars) and did the opposite fitting great guns/sighting/control systems to get the first hit (which is the only thing that really matter in armored warfare, who hit first win the engagement in nearly all post WWII recorded tank engagement) largely discarded the idea of "anti-gun" armor and immediately started researching ERA, which was fitted even on cold war designs.
So the Leclercs comes all with 360° advanced nERA tiles as part of their basic armor and passive automated ATGM countermeasure. It's one of the reason they cost so much, it's not a fucking miracle they do better, it's simply different design philosophy.
I'm lying BTW, there is one UAE leclerc that was totaled by the houtis…
It took a SS-21 Scarab warhead to the face.
38bfb1 No.548394
>>548393
>several chally 2 got fucked up by RPGs in Iraq.
Err… Muh chally 2 that survived 70 RPG hits
c61773 No.548396
>slav tier tank design
You mean the designs that scared the US so bad you built the M1, A-10, AH-64 and crammed TOWs onto the M2 to counter them?
Building 10 of the best doesn't win wars if the enemy can have 20 that are 90% as effective for the same price.
This is without even considering the fact the M1 is about to turn 30 with no plans to replace it while the T-14 is rolling off the lines. No it isn't because the M1 is that good, it's because the US is broke
70d3dd No.548398
>>548396
>implying general dynamics isn't purposefully making things shit so that the DoD will throw all of their shekels at the problem when they realize just how bad things really are.
You'd think that someone from a corrupt dystopia would understand this.
4eb14e No.548400
>>548386
>Chally 2
>Not used
What did he mean by this?
c61773 No.548401
>>548398
There is no money to be had, if the F-22 and F-35 had of been remotely clost to budget there might have been a chance. Now congress will be less willing to spend than ever as they delay borrowing more despite knowing the options are borrow more or go full USSR.
8e4319 No.548402
>>548392
Show me teh video of ATGM launch against Chally
>pro tip: you can't
c61773 No.548404
>>548402
90% of the ATGM footage is recorded by the FSA to prove what they fired their last allotment of 6 TOWs at so the CIA will give them more.
8e4319 No.548413
>>548404
> TOWs
There are tons of other ATGMs on these videos. Metis, Faggots, Kornets, some Milans. But remember
>no Challenger
How do we know that Challenger was shot with modern AT weapon ever? Times articles?
c61773 No.548415
>>548413
If you can find the army's public records they will be accurate. No point in lying about what took you out if it's not going to get you more budget.
8e4319 No.548418
>>548415
>No point in lying about what took you out if it's not going to get you more budget.
It is opposite if your tank is pure piece of shit it is your interest to hide this fact from public otherwise public may refuse to finance production of POS tank that "can't fight russian threat".
de8e48 No.548421
>>548418
No, the emu may have a point here. If you want new gear it makes sense to publish a bunch of sob stories about brave britbonigstani soldiers getting killed by their inferior equipment so that the budget people throw more money your way for useless "upgrades."
c61773 No.548424
>>548421
Exactly, if they are going to lie about losing a tank it's more likely to be "poor bongs bonked by ancient bazooka" than "iChanny nailed by a tandem warhead ATGM, nothing could have lived".
e89008 No.548425
>>548421
That's what Germany does when they need to more money to Oyvey & Meincock so they can shit out another AR-18.
f3b439 No.548429
ITT: Anons defending their country's tank and calling it literally the best while shitting on other designs
8e4319 No.548430
>>548421
>If you want new gear it makes sense to publish a bunch of sob stories about brave britbonigstani soldiers getting killed by their inferior equipment
So you are talking about propaganda and public opinion manipulation that has nothing to do with actual performance…
c61773 No.548431
>>548430
Now you are catching on….
8e4319 No.548432
>>548425
Actually initially German military industrial complex hid melting G-36 fiasco and was full denial mode. They even sent Stasi over journalists publishing stories.
5602fc No.548434
>>548400
>What did he mean by this?
A rough translation from Burger to English
>"Hi, I'm a colossal fucking faggot and I took a few minutes away from sucking my dogs dick to tell you all that I know nothing"
>t. >>548386
>>548430
>propaganda and public opinion manipulation that has nothing to do with actual performance
It's a government press statement, how could it ever have any relationship to the actual performance of anything?
dc218d No.548435
>>548413
>>548413
>How do we know that Challenger was shot with modern AT weapon ever?
Easy since the brit MoD was claiming stupid stuff like "it can take 6 000 000 RPG", the minute soldiers started to die in them and they kept it quiet they got sued.
https://archive.is/ximl
Of course they blamed it on super secrit russian weapons (RPG-29, so a soviet weapon of the same age than the Chally 2 that everyone makes under license today)…
f3b439 No.548436
Here's a question:
Why don't countries simply make a tank that has enough armor to stop modern APFSDS rounds frontally, while also having enough armor to be completely impregnable by ATGMs from all sides?
Pretty sure the technology exists and budget wouldn't be that much of an issue.
c61773 No.548439
>>548436
Weight, if it can't cross a bridge or leave the tarmac it's not much use to anyone. What you are describing is basically a super-tank and we know how retarded they are from history.
f3b439 No.548441
>>548439
But isn't modern armor much lighter than old steel designs? It should still be able to cross the average slavshit bridge as long as it's not Maus-tier heavy
c61773 No.548443
>>548441
APS is the future as it allows for light fast maneuverable vehicles that can survive just about any AT attack.
The catch with more armor is it just leads to bigger warheads with Cheyenne Mountain Complex and the Tsar Bomb being the ultimate example of this.
8e4319 No.548446
>>548435
>oh look, Challenger was shot once by modern RPG and it went through
Point is?
f3b439 No.548447
>>548443
Correct me if I'm wrong anon, but isn't APS only meant for stopping ATGMs and other missiles? Pretty sure that it is technically impossible to stop a fucking flying rod travelling at over 2,000 m/s
531efc No.548448
>>548272
>supposed to have
What did they even change? If that was early variation of A4's that was BTFO, which I think it was, only thing separating fighting compartment and ammunition stores is basically glorified IKEA shelf door made of plastic.
>>548279
Well he is correct. You are stuck training for the previous war, and when real shooting war starts, most of that training goes out of the window for vast majority of countries. Officers will learn in time, but it's going to cost bodies, bodies which you can ill afford to lose and you can't replace if you're stuck with a professional standing army. No ammount of training in peace time can apparently fix militaries from their borderline crippling retardation.
>>548281
Just like all the previous major wars were suppose to be over by Christmas right?
c61773 No.548450
>>548447
You can't make it stop but you can deform the head greatly reducing penetration, there have even been tests with continuous-rod warheads to cut the penetrator into more manageable pieces before impact.
ae1f8e No.548452
>>548443
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain_Complex#Blast_doors
>The bunker is built to deflect a 30 megaton nuclear explosion as close as 2 kilometers (1.2 mi).
If true that's pretty impressive.
c61773 No.548453
>>548452
Tsar bomb was designed for a 100 megaton yield and was detuned to 50 megatons for the test due to radiation concerns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
dc218d No.548455
>>548446
It's not "modern RPG" at all, simply the most basic AT weapons the soviets were issuing basically a decade before the Chally 2, that are now pretty standard even in dirt poor countries and non-state actors?
Which mean that if would likely fare just as bad against soviet ATGMs as the M1/Leo2 do in syria/yemen.
You guys are aware that the RPG-7 was the soviet standard during the VIETNAM WAR right?
And that being proud our tanks can shrug them off is like being amazed a M-60 can resist a Pak 36.
5602fc No.548472
>>548453
>When the weapon is so dangerous even the Russians don't want to use it at full strength.
89b826 No.548475
>>548249
Pretty fucked since it would be pretty much a US civil war held in some shithole country while the Kurds watch
af21c5 No.548481
>>548472
>I did warn you
>and that was only at half
>though now I am starting to question weather or not I ought to have even bothered with that much
>how anticlimatic
38bfb1 No.548485
>>548455
>the RPG-29 suddenly became an RPG-7
Also, it was hit on it's underside which didn't have any ERA at the time
>a single chally 2 using an old armour package that is no longer in use being hit by an RPG in an esoteric once in a lifetime spot is proof of the modern chally 2's effectiveness against other missiles.
9c2866 No.548499
>>548429
> Greece
Do you even have a tank?
41faf1 No.548506
>>548413
If a tank can survive a Kornet, it can survive anything. Its a bit more than half the ability of a Maverick, which is a light anti ship missile…. Kornet can crack open a Chally or an Abrams from all but maybe 2 degrees of approach.
>>548485
Lower glacis isnt unarmored, it has about 600mm RHA equivalent. Similar to Abrams in fact. And RPG7 (tandem warhead) can penetrate that. Sides and rear are even less protected.
The best protection is two or three pintle mounted .50 cal that can shoot any missile crew before they fire.
790264 No.548533
>>548448
>Just like all the previous major wars were suppose to be over by Christmas right?
>Iraq 1 & 2
985f0b No.548578
>>548356
Anglos truly are the master race
5602fc No.548587
>>548578
Was there ever any doubt?
ae1f8e No.548608
>>548499
No but we have more tanks than the rest of Europe, minus Poland, together.
f3b439 No.548611
>>548499
It annoys me to no extent that we haven't developed our very own supertanks already but I guess the German trash we own will have to make do until then. The Turks don't have anything to compete. The Altay is trash and their 2A4s don't even have machineguns
ce0e69 No.548623
>>548620
Huh? The Germans never bombed England in 1939.
5602fc No.548640
>>548620
>The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
>We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end. We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly.
>In spite of all that happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a relatively humane method.
It's always rather funny how triggered your Krauts still get when you're reminded how terribly you did in the last war, and for all of your history to date.
cb97b3 No.548643
>>548640
Shit who made this video, thats some quality posting right there.
So wait, the krauts are basicly salty Frenchmen?
808474 No.548644
>>548640
>fucked up europe forever
>proud of it
Enjoy your Islamic gommunism Nigel
808474 No.548645
>>548643
It's from KC /int/.
Howdy Germanic servants! Check it out, I'm made of Gold!
t. Charlemagne
ce0e69 No.548647
>>548640
The British bombed Germany first…
a6df25 No.548653
>>548643
>the krauts are basicly salty Frenchmen?
The best explanation for the German condition is this: think of your typical DnD fantasy dwarfs, expect they dwell in the forests, and some of them have the delusion that they are actually faggy elves. And all kinds of bad shit happens when they reject themselves and try to act like faggy elves.
d6dcc3 No.548654
>>548620
>Gott Strafe England
>punches scotland
see this is why you lost the war
ae1f8e No.548658
>>548361
Can't unhear. Now I want an edit.
dc218d No.548674
>>548653
Germans are and always have been orcs.
Swiss are the drawfs.
>>548643
>the krauts are basically salty Frenchmen
West Germans were largely the same people as French/Dutch (especially northern France). The thing is it's Prussia (the orcs) that largely created german national identity. Prussian were largely mutts of angles and saxons colons, christianized slavs and nordics living in the sticks that conquered the more modern and civilized parts of germany, to conceal that they were basically a barbarian occupying power they created the myth of the "german people" (which hardly had any historical reality), which excluded the franks history completely (even though Charlemagne, the "first german emperor" was never anything else than king of the franks… or that the "german kingdom" name was "Ostfrankenreich" a.k.a "regnum Francorum Orientalium", to conceal the usurpation of the est franks throne by the saxons at the time the "german kings" were larping as "romans king", which is where the orcs got the idea).
8e4319 No.548684
>>548674
Charlemagne was king of jews. Franks were his slaves.
5602fc No.548687
>>548654
>kekked my fucking pants
Thanks m8
>>548644
If you project any harder you'll get good work at a cinema.
>>548647
The RAF bombed military and industrial targets. The Germans responded by bombing civilians, leading to the RAF retaliating in kind.
>The Kraut cries out in pain as he strikes you.
>>548674
>Germans are and always have been orcs.
>Swiss are the drawfs.
At least we can agree that the French are the Elves.
8e4319 No.548688
>>548687
Elves left before Age of Men started.
9ce193 No.548694
>>548640
>It's always rather funny how triggered your Krauts still get when you're reminded how terribly you did in the last war, and for all of your history to date.
Look at the current state of your country and be reminded that you won this war.
If that is what "winning" looks like, its better to have lost the war.
de8e48 No.548698
>>548694
If it wasn't for the Kraut's retarded, ineffectual sperging in the last war, the people in power wouldn't have nearly as much ammunition with which to convert the normies to their cause.
dc218d No.548699
>>548687
> the French are the Elves.
No the French, Italians and Spaniard are "the men that came before", the guys that used to have a world spanning empire but have split into several kingdom that are a shadow of their formal glory.
The elves were the Celts, the people that lived in Europe before "the men that came before" and were largely assimilated in the first of their empires (Rome) and essentially disappeared.
The last elvish holdout were rapped/enslaved to death by the orcs (anglo-saxons).
Also the muslims are beastmen (arabs are ratmen, turks are wolfmen… etc), asian insect people, etc… Russia is home of the steppe barbarian men, where only strength rule and thus has an "empire", an imitation of the fallen ones of the men of the west a cornucopia of barbarians tribes, orcs tribes, beastmen tribes and insectmen tribes.
a6df25 No.548701
>>548699
Do you want to tell us that the future belongs to the Finno-Ugric peoples?
4eb14e No.548702
>>548647
Strictly speaking the Germans were the first to bomb cities rather than explicitly military targets, with Rotterdam in particular being the one that sparked a tit-for-tat set of bombings they might also have bombed some civilians in Poland before but I assumed you were talking Western Front.
15f7a7 No.548710
>>548698
I find the krauts spergings were pretty mild compared to the ruskies and even the allies did some pretty bad shit and I'm not just talking about the eternal anglo copypasta but the 2 million killed after the allies took over not to mention the fuckton of women raped. They didn't have gulags, they didn't genocide whole ethnic groups, they didn't do half the crazy shit the russians did like kill off all the intellectuals, manipulate history, strap bombs to dogs, subvert and opress their public under heavy ideological supression (a lot of skeletons in russia's rivers and the yards of old factories). You read some litterature on how life was in the soviet union even back then and you'll change your mind real quick. The krauts were just subject to a heavy ideological campaign to make them look like evil incarnate, if you look at the big picture all the ammunition they have a mostly duds, smoke and mirrors with the only real attrocities happening later on in the war when everyone was just doing whatever the fuck they wanted.
de8e48 No.548712
>>548710
I've got a pretty good idea of just how bad the USSR was, I have family that came over when shit started opening up. Not to mention I've read about more than a few of the things you mentioned. Biggest war crime of WWII if you ask me was not letting Patton keep marching east until he got to Moscow, then him suffering an """accident""" after proposing that. I just enjoy watching the kraut act like a kraut.
5602fc No.548722
>>548699
So France is presumably Gondor, in your mind at least. The once great kingdom now languishing under the rule of an incompetent regent. Do you think that make us Brits Orks (Elves tortured by the forces of evil until they no longer resembled themselves)? Who would be the men of the Riddermark?
>>548712
>Biggest war crime of WWII if you ask me was not letting Patton keep marching east until he got to Moscow
Somewhere out there in the multiverse there is a world where that happened. The lucky bastards.
dc218d No.548745
>>548722
I'm speaking in general fantasy terms, not in tolkien specifics.
In tolkien Rohan is France, Gondor is US, the elves are British, dwarves are jews.
And the germans are still orks.
Orks main characteristic, from Tolkien to warhammer to D&D is that everything they always do is ultimately focused on fighting and war. Which describes Germany to a T, the minute Germany has stopped doing that is the minute Germany national identity has quickly dissolved (1991), and is going to get devoured eaten by the other servants of evil, which is what we're witnessing.
But also yeah, Brits, Yanks and Germans are just different tribes of orks. Germans are true savage orks, brits and yanks are orks domesticated by the (((evil necromancers))).
France, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, etc… are essentially the provinces of the Empire in warhammer, they were once great, they defeated and repelled all the subsequent invasions of orks, ratmen, etc, but centuries of fighting and in-fighting, progressively deprived them of their strength. They are also doomed, because what made them great, all they aspire too, has in fact ceased to exist a long time ago. It's the whimper of their civilization we're witnessing, not the bang.
7dce09 No.548746
>>548745
this isn't true, Tolkien disliked allegory.
5d4a36 No.548747
>>548396
>>548401
Why would we spend millions on developing a new tank when we have complete and utter air superiority. Our tanks won't even have to see combat when an f35 fucks t14s from BVR
Can we end this stupid non existent point? Yeah the f35 is pretty expensive but the A10 is so out of date. I don't understand how some guy on the internet thinks a plane that has to visually acquire targets from low altitude and slow speeds could possibly work against any nation with semi-modern AA.
We R&D our military to outperform our competitors and right now there is no competition except for Russia and China building their own stealth fighters.
1c6fba No.548748
>>548710
>Russians
Mate you do understand most of the bolsheviks weren't Russian and in fact hated them and all the other slavs? Look what they did to the cossacks.
de8e48 No.548749
>>548747
One (1) shekel has been deposited into your Lockmart account.
4eb14e No.548763
>>548745
You're reading too much into Tolkien anon.
c1e66d No.548769
>>548710
>bolsheviks
>ethnically Russian
pick one
Go read The Gulag Archipelago or 200 Years Together (A Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich is good too) while you're at it.
266e42 No.548775
>>548769
The poster reads "Yid is people's plague!"
edc68c No.548778
>be powerhouse in WWII
>lose to (((commies)))
>surprised when all your shit you're producing is trash
6ca570 No.548779
>>548169
Germans have a hard time engineering anything.
Instead of engineering the part that fails to be stronger, they engineer another part to pick up the slack.
Keep going with that and you'll realize how their shit gets overcomplicated as fuck for no damned reason.
edc68c No.548780
>>548779
Are you talking shit about my raifu you heathen?
6ca570 No.548781
>>548780
It even goes to simple shit like the G3's trigger group 21 fucking parts or the STG-44's need for the magazine to tilt for it to function with the tilting bolt mechanism that they could have easily fixed.
Though the Slavs turn into Krauts when they realize they can't just overbuild a part.
de8e48 No.548782
>>548775
"Zhid" is closer to Jew than Yid.
6ca570 No.548783
>>548782
>American
>Trying to tell a Russian about his own language
Zhid is a slur, it's the same as Kike or Yid, it isn't anything like "Yvrey", "Iud" or "Iudej"
41faf1 No.548795
>>548783
Actually it says
>Yids: The plague of the people.
Russians dont understand "the" so he mistranslated.
dc218d No.548796
>>548763
>>548746
He also disliked illiterates.
An allegory is saying something to say another, in that case telling a fictitious story to speak about real politics… which he certainly did not.
Doesn't mean fictitious archetypes weren't inspired from real world archetypes, the middle-earth geography and "history" is fully inspired of Europe own history.
And if you ask a britfag history nerd who had the meanest and biggest heavy armored cavalry and grey eminence with kings under influence (pic related)… there is only one answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_%28historical%29
de8e48 No.548798
>>548782
>>548783
я русский каторы живет в США. У меня нету не русская клавиатура не наклейки для американскова клавиатура, тогда я пользувыел латынские буквы.
My slur knowledge isn't perfect however. I can tell you that Yvrey is Israeli and not Jew though.
5097c2 No.548801
>>548798
>>548783
>>548782
žid (zhid) means jew in my language but when you call non-jew ´žid´ it is generally considered as insult.
(implication of greed/dishonesty)
41faf1 No.548808
>>548748
Only one dictator of USSR was 100% Russian: Gorbachev.
And he ended that monstrosity.
Rest are all georgian, polish, jewish, ukrainian etc. and they killed 100 million Russians.
4c07d5 No.548995
>>548779
Anon that is the entire point of high tech. Something doesn't exist, so you invent a mechanism that can create the desired effect. It works perfectly when you can enforce quality control and keep your standards.
Simpletons just see the clock work mechanism of the G11 and think it will be prone to failure, what they cant envision is this mechanism getting streamlined and mass produced to such a high quality that it could hold out longer than the barrel of the rifles it is installed in.
Equally they see the compact design of the mechanism, but they cannot think about a design for the rifle where replacing the mechanism is as easy as changing a magazine.
And think about the work places this would have created, chinks cannot do such a design because they suck at enforcing quality control.
Lastly Germany was allowed to go crazy with the G11, because they were in an technology research sharing alliance with the UK and if they couldn't make it work, they could have fallen back on the British research into bullpups and the .280 British cartridge.
6ca570 No.548997
>>548995
>Anon that is the entire point of high tech
It isn't, you make something effective with the least amount of chances for failure. Having more parts pick up the slack means you have more shit to break, more parts to make sure that are within QC standards, more parts for the average user to deal with, more parts with DIFFERENT MEAN TIMES OF FAILURE. I'm not even saying go full slav and overbuild anything.
You have to make a balance.
5602fc No.549000
>>548997
>You have to make a balance.
If your choices were between going full Kraut Space Magic and going full Slav, you'd probably be much better off going full Slav.
9b68c4 No.549003
>>548747
You do realize that to do that you first have to win an air war, right? And like I said so many times before, it's not ww2 any more. Yes, back in the time you had a hard time shooting down a flying machine by spraying lots of lead towards it's general direction from the ground, so you had to send up your own flying machine to spray lead at it. But that's not the case any more, there isn't that much of a difference between launching guided missiles from flying machines and launching guided missiles from trucks. If anything, the truck holds an edge, because it doesn't have a limited time to engage, it can hide better, and you can surround it with lots of additional AA systems. And then there is the problem that the Russians would be mean enough to launch cruise missiles at your airfields. So jerking off to "stealth fighters" is incredibly misguided.
6ca570 No.549010
>>549003
That isn't entirely true.
If the enemy is in a mountainous region, it would be hard for them to have decent AA countermeasures since the incoming aircraft can fly close to the ground and through valleys to get to the target.
You don't need to send as much fighters up I agree, but AA isn't the end all be all in air defense unless you're attacking a completely flat country.
I think the Russian multiple overlapping envelopes of air defense works well.
Short range AA (Tunguska or Pantsir [Maybe even Tor])
Medium Range AA (Buk systems and upgrades)
Area Defense fighters (MiG-21, MiG-29 and MiG-35)
Long Range AA (S300 and S400)
Long Range Penetrating Fighters (Su-27 family and the SU-57)
All being "walked" with whatever ground forces they're assigned to protect from battalion level all the way up to field army.
9b68c4 No.549011
>>549010
But even if you take out the planes from the Russian system, you still can't just fly towards them in a straight line and start taking off tanks one-by-one. You have to go through their AA before you can do that, and until you get rid off their AA systems your planes can't have an effect on the ground war. And Russia does seem to hold the edge when it comes to ground forces, therefore saying that the US armed forces are just fine with outdated tanks and artillery because they have a shiny new plane is a bit of an overstatement in my opinion.
>If the enemy is in a mountainous region, it would be hard for them to have decent AA countermeasures since the incoming aircraft can fly close to the ground and through valleys to get to the target.
But it also means that you have to fly through valleys to actually find the enemy forces, and if they happen to have some decent AA designed specifically to take out a plane that fly to the valley it's located in… you can see the problem. Also, you can always take the guerrilla approach. Here is an interesting writing on that subject (although you might be already familiar with it, I've found it here after all).
4aa5c1 No.549022
>>549010
>If the enemy is in a mountainous region, it would be hard for them to have decent AA countermeasures since the incoming aircraft can fly close to the ground and through valleys to get to the target.
That's the exact opposite. Mountains makes it way harder for planes to bomb and way easier for defenders to post AA.
Bombs fall on a angled trajectory, relief creates dead zones, in which planes only have one strike axis possible… put some AA in it and instead of having the need for 360° awareness because you don't know where the planes are gonna come, you can tell exactly where they will be (and if they're not… they will miss).
Mountain warfare requires a lot of map reading and very very good spatial geometry abstraction capacities. There are place in mountains that, given the speed of modern aircraft simply cannot be bombed, unless you go through the mountain first.
4aa5c1 No.549024
>>549022
That's exactly how you can shoot a F-117 even if you get a radar lock on it.
Predicting where the enemy planes will be given the combat situation and positioning accordingly to the local environment is the job description of an AA officer.
Everything else can be entirely automated (and largely is)…
Artillery corps was always where you would find the officers good at maths, AA artillery is worse.
6ca570 No.549028
>>549022
If you set your AA on mountain tops you not only block their coverage for low altitudes, but you also greatly reduce their operational area and make them very easy to pick up via ELINT if they're already turned on and those mountains can just be avoided as well.
My statement wasn't anti AA, my statement was you need a mix of both Fighters and AA to have decent air defense. A hard ground based air denial envelope around ground forces augmented by a more flexible airborne aerial denial vehicle, manned or unmanned.
>>549011
Protracted defense only works if the enemy you're fighting doesn't have decent satellite intelligence.
The Chinese probably already know where all of those Taiwanese setups are or if not, find out very quickly.
The sad thing is, they cannot even pull off something like a forward defense strategy like most small nations do and cannot give up any sort of space for the Chinese to draw them thin.
tl;dr Taiwan is too close to China and their strategy is for a China that was around 15 years ago.
41faf1 No.549057
>>549022
That is NOT how it works. The difficulty of just setting up one SPAAG in any mountainous region without roads is ridiculous. To cover any appreciable number of TERCOM approaches to a skngle high value site, you would have to airdrop in hundreds of SPAAG. And they would have to be on high alert 24/7 because they would only get seconds to shoot at a passing jet.
d3cc5a No.549156
>>549028
>Protracted defense only works if the enemy you're fighting doesn't have decent satellite intelligence.
Why? If they don't actively track every square metre 24/7, then at best they will know where your convoy of AA vehicles was a few hours ago. It takes time to go through the pictures after all. They still have to fly there to attack it, and that's risky and expensive. Of course you could say that you bomb the country back to stone age and then the AA will be worthless, but it doesn't work like that, because you will still have to deal with the AA first. Besides, think of Serbia. The USA threw everything it had on that country, and it still barely had an effect.
>The Chinese probably already know where all of those Taiwanese setups are or if not, find out very quickly.
Have you actually read that report? They advocate for mobile AA systems disguised inside shipping containers. Kind of like pic related, just with Sea Sparrows. I somehow doubt that China can keep track of every single shipping container. They just have to drive into a warehouse with a few fake vehicles, switch the identical containers around, and drive out. Repeat it a few times and they will have no chance finding them.
>The sad thing is, they cannot even pull off something like a forward defense strategy like most small nations do and cannot give up any sort of space for the Chinese to draw them thin.
Now I know that you didn't read it. It advocates for a prolonged guerrilla war, the AA is there to attack targets of opportunity. It would force the PLAAF cautious and therefore reduce their overall effectiveness. Of course the long game here is to either discourage the mainlanders with the promise of great causalities, or give enough time to Taiwan's allies to step in.
>>549057
Then use MANPADs, or even bigger missiles. It's not like you need a SPAAG to launch them.
293914 No.549159
>>549156
I don't think you understand how hard the Chinese have been looking at the taiwanese since 2003. They know wjat goes into the country, what comes out, where stuff goes etc.
Their plan isn't some long drawn out war, it's a shock and awe campaign and taking over the capital building (they have already made a mock up of this and have repeated the operation many times) and the whole thing should take 12 hours meaning that everything would have to be on high alert at all times.
>shipping containers
if men in military uniforms are seen around shipping containers, I think they would figure out what's going on based on how far away fron the coast they are and use their ELINT to figure out what containers are around radar sites and how far the range is.
If they were much further away from the Chinese then it would have a point. But the paper is written as if the Chinese haven't put up a concerted effort to deal with whatever the Taiwanese want to come up with.
The paper is more relevant to a nation like Singapore or something.
>MANPADS or Larger on the mountains
Larger would need a large logistical footprint and MANPADS would need to be manned 24/7 with a very short window till those fighters are out of range.
You are better off setting systems up around the mountain so they cannot use it but again, you will still have blindspots in the aiming system that can be exploited and all active sites will be picked up by ELINT and men moving around those areas will be picked up from Satellite Intelligence minutes before any operation is done.
d3cc5a No.549162
>>549159
>Their plan isn't some long drawn out war, it's a shock and awe campaign and taking over the capital building (they have already made a mock up of this and have repeated the operation many times) and the whole thing should take 12 hours meaning that everything would have to be on high alert at all times.
And if the Taiwan prepares for a prolonged guerrilla war, then taking over the capital in 12 hours means nothing. Especially if the military is intact and they still have to deal with the fleet of submarines and the anti-ship missile batteries. Without an invasion they'd just send their shpeshul forces into certain death.
>if men in military uniforms are seen around shipping containers, I think they would figure out what's going on based on how far away fron the coast they are and use their ELINT to figure out what containers are around radar sites and how far the range is.
Luckily soldiers can wear civilian clothes, and the paper advocates for integrating the sensors into the containers themselves.
>Larger would need a large logistical footprint
If it's under 100kg assembled, then it's fine, mountain howitzers often weighted more than half a ton.
>MANPADS would need to be manned 24/7 with a very short window till those fighters are out of range.
Then just automatize them. You set them up at the right place and tell them to fire at anything that flies into their line-of-sight at hundreds of kms per hour.
293914 No.549163
>>549162
I never said they were taking the capital, I said capital building, two different things.
Guerilla warfare only works when ypu are denying an area, surgical strikes are good against guerilla warfare, and conventional warfare is good against surgical strikes.
>Civilian clothes
>doing this against an enemy on the permanent security counsel
this can only end badly for the Taiwanese
plus, they will still see those containers, never unloaded, moved from place to place, with men moving in and out of them at varying times of day as if it is scheduled.
>fire at anything that flies in
oh so it will shoot down civilian airlines going to Taiwan from China, or any other flight flying through the Strait
>100kg SAM
>having any considerable range
then you have an even smaller window to take down whatever aircraft is flying overhead.
d3cc5a No.549166
>>549163
>two different things
I merely forgot to type out a word there. But it doesn't change anything, this isn't a vidya where you hold a point for x time and you win the map. Even if they take the president hostage or kill him, they will be in the middle of a city swarming with enemy forces, and the military will be still intact.
>this can only end badly for the Taiwanese
Why? You can let people wearing civilian clothes inspect military equipment during peace time, even if they themselves are soldiers. And when the war starts they just need an armband to show their affiliation.
>they will still see those containers, never unloaded, moved from place to place, with men moving in and out of them at varying times of day as if it is scheduled.
Do they have magic satellites that see through the roof of a warehouse full of containers stacked on each other? Because if the answer is no, then it's not that hard to hide them there, repaint them into different colours, and then put them on different trucks.
>oh so it will shoot down civilian airlines going to Taiwan from China
>then you have an even smaller window to take down whatever aircraft is flying overhead.
You seem to be confused, the parts you've replied to refer to the part of AA in mountainous terrain. It only has to defend against the aircraft bombing the forces in that mountain range, and I doubt many civilian airlines would fly through an active conflict zone. As for the size, now that I think about it you could design a heavier missile than can be broken down to smaller parts for transportation.
293914 No.549168
>>549166
>you have SAMs set up for when the war has already started
by that time it is already too late, even worse if they are still in the warehouse and your enemy is only 180km away.
not only that but most likely those warehouses would be some of the first targets.
>take the president hostage
That isnt it at all, that is how long it would take for them to take the palace and convice him to sign a declaration of surrender. All before the US could respond.
They aren't holding any land in the entire conflict.
>Defending men on the range
You use aircraft for the time being and you set up the SAM sites around the range moving the aircraft cover forward of the range. that way you cover all around the range and deny them from taking any chances around that area in the first place.
This is what I have been saying before about "walking" your air cover and having envelope overlaps.
08e675 No.549181
>>548401
>F-35
Speaking of the F-35, I remember arguing with a bunch of no-gun fags a few days back. I had to explain to them why the F-35 is BS. I mentioned it being out-classed by much older planes, it's stealth being almost useless, costing an insane amount, mass-producing it before fully testing it, the fact that the Navy needs to build ships specifically designed to handle the craft and its deck-melting VTOL. They brushed off the cost point with the classic: "all projects cost a lot". So unchecked spending taken to new heights is okay because we spent a lot at another point in time? We're not even in a wartime state and we spend like nobody's business. I don't see how we need such a massive, money sinkhole, plane to fight mudshits in some random shit hole.
41faf1 No.549182
>>549156
If youve ever seen a MANPAD work you would know it needs seconds to acquire and wond do so if theres ground clutter behind it. Theres a reason cruise missiles in TERCOM are considered unbeatable.
6ca570 No.549209
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>549182
>TERCOM
I don't think most people understand how low fighterpilots and cruise missiles fly.
30-50m or 100-164feet makes it really hard for most radar systems to detect them unless they're AWACS or a fighter with look down turned on.
It's like most people have forgotten why the F-111 was so effective at its job
8aab92 No.549213
>>549003
>You do realize that to do that you first have to win an air war, right?
Be fair to him - the entire US military has been based around the idea that they're the only ones with planes for a while now.
41faf1 No.549225
>>549209
>land at base
>maintenance man ask
>"why grass in inlet?"
;)
>canopy tested against birds
>but is it tested against rabbits?
;)))
d3cc5a No.549235
>>549168
>That isnt it at all, that is how long it would take for them to take the palace and convice him to sign a declaration of surrender. All before the US could respond.
Please tell me that you are baiting. Do you honestly believe that if the president of Taiwan signs a piece of paper while being threatened, then everybody on that island from generals to streetsweepers will just throw their hands up and say "fuck it all, we love Mao now, let the communists just land there", and wouldn't resist the incoming invasion fleet?
6ca570 No.549241
>>549235
I'm telling you how the doctrine is and the plan of the Chinese, not that it would work or not.
They aren't just holding the president at hostage, but the schools in the area, the airport and such.
Small areas with not alot of land to be taken, just the buildings and the runways at the airport and an interchange or two. .
Your solutions wouldn't prevent them from carrying it out is what I'm saying. A concerted conventional effort is what would work, not only with a more flexible air bubble with BOTH SAMs and fighter aircraft, but a decent antisubmarine fleet (since the Chinese have made very recent long strides in submarine technologies).
You put way too much faith into something that would not work against a surgical operation like that.
Taiwan also would not be fighting alone since within 72 hours to a week, the siege will be broken by US Forces since the Chinese cannot afford a month long conflict against another state, which if the Chinese are smart may put the North Koreans at work to disrupt the US's priorities elsewhere leaving the Taiwanese high and dry, which is where their irregulars will come in to probably hold more places of interest, however, the PRC PLA has no intentions to spread further from those areas of interest.
tl;dr The Chinese have only really a handful of goals in an invasion, all of them are in Taipei and a Guerrilla effort would not stop them from taking those goals since they have no interest in spreading further away from those goals. They're playing Go, not Chess.
4fc5b7 No.549256
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>548620
>not posting the Hassgesange gegen England
cb97b3 No.549313
>>549241
The forcible reunification wont happens as long as there is an economic benifit for the mainland and the US exists Unless we get MR pact 2.0 but unlikely
5d4a36 No.549357
>>549003
Do you even know what the point of stealth is? It's to prevent the enemy from guiding a missile to the f35, something that it does very well.
>>549181
> I mentioned it being out-classed by much older planes, it's stealth being almost useless, costing an insane amount
Out classed in what sense? Yeah it is outclassed by some air superiority fighters which is only natural considering the fact that it wasn't even designed for air superiority. Outclassed by it's payload? It can carry just as much as pretty much any other CAS plane can and it can also carry things internally. VTOL is also super important when you have to stage out of a shitty war torn country. I mean look at the group of harriers that were operating out of a soccer stadium in Iraq. Yeah it is expensive but it isn't to "fight mudshits in some random shit hole". It's to compete with China and Russia's Stealth fighters.
>>549213
Other country's have planes but we have a hell of a lot more than them.
a9204a No.549406
>>548674
>frogs are still butt hurt from losing
4867fd No.549412
>>548249
>kurds
>competent
pick one
They were fucking pathetic before the US and Russia started helping them
a9204a No.549415
>>549410
<liberty, Equality, Fraternity
>Infantry, Calvary, Artilery
e0ee75 No.549419
>>548779
Is that supposed to be a compass?
8aab92 No.549485
>>549419
No. It's a FAMAS.
34730f No.549515
>>549406
Yes won ONE war once, the only war they ever won.
France won all the others (and so many of those were France VS EVERYONE not just HRE/Prussia/Germany. Because France actually fought wars "against the whole world" and won/draw most of them, only Werhboo cry about it being unfair) and occupied Germany for most of the XX century.
Germany, so great at war…
896917 No.549521
>>549515
To be fair, your greatest victories were during the Napoleonic wars, and those happened because other European powers were still in the mindset of the wars of the Westphalian system where they fought a few battles and then loser ceded some land in a treaty. Compared to that the French revolution really did bring new levels of mobilization and fanaticism. Not that conscription was anything new, or that you won simply because you kept throwing bodies at the enemy, but it's undeniable that it was something new and different in Europe.
6ca570 No.549523
>>549313
I'm not saying that they will or not, I'm saying that's the Chinese plan for Taiwan.
But if the US gets caught up in anything in Korea or Iran, then they'll more than likely pull it off.
a881f7 No.549547
>>549515
>Because France actually fought wars "against the whole world" and won/draw most of them
7 Years war
ce0e69 No.549550
>>549515
Yes, stop bullying the French. They may never have won a battle against Prussia in the War of the First Coalition and been thoroughly trounced every time they crossed aside from when the Prussians gave up and went home but went home they did and the French grand strategy of never winning a battle was a groundbreaking success.
a881f7 No.549554
>>549550
How to trigger frogs:
34730f No.549567
>>549547
>7 Years war
You mean the one when France send garbage troops to "help" Austria and definitely got Lorraine?
>B-But it lost colonies.
France royal colonial policies were always retarded (non-existant more like), worse the French East Indian company associates had been largely bought out by the British East India, meaning they were purposefully taking decisions favoring the British (that's how Dupleix got fired, Madras was exchanged for a wooden fort in Canada, etc…)
>B-But you lost that ONE battle against Prussia.
So the handful of throw away troops and their general, lover rival to the king, joined by the various allies orks warbands got stomped. What a shock, what a terrible loss.
See there was something at that time called the "secret du roi", basically the french government and the King didn't have the same policy, so while the government was making wars and alliance publicly while the king was busy "establishing France in it's natural borders" which was the actual strategic objective.
France didn't care whether or not Austria won against Prussia, what they cared about was for when the Emperor died he didn't pass on claims to the duchy of Lorraine to anyone.
So they assembled rabble (every contemporary source call the french soldiers "a bunch of undisciplined rapists and looters", even the french ones! Hell in french ones there are some pretty big suspicions that they weren't even getting payed and the money embezzled and redirected elsewhere), throw them at Prussia and cie and watched them die…
And secured it's eastern border as a result of the fallout.
What a defeat!
34730f No.549570
>>549567
Yes, it's the same Lorraine the orks have been trying to get back for 250 years.
But it's the french that are so butthurt, sure.
084fe0 No.549572
>>549567
>You mean the one when France send garbage troops to "help" Austria and definitely got Lorraine?
No I mean the one where France was speed to thin because the King (Louis the 13 I believe) was too indecisive to focus on the European war or the colonial war.
>France royal colonial policies were always retarded (non-existant more like)
You had the majority of North America albiet vary sparsly populated and most of the Indian tribes on your side. If France has ignored the war in Europe and focused on the Colonial war I don’t doubt you could have won.
>So the handful of throw away troops and their general, lover rival to the king, joined by the various allies orks warbands got stomped.
I’m well aware that France’s land contriubution was more of a show for Austria’s sake than an actual attack. I believe the French troops were told they would be paid by whatever they could pillage, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Though I was referring to Blücher’s contributions to the First coalition war, not the 7 years war.
>>549570
>Lorraine
Lothringen*
Though you do have to admit that declaring war on your enemy only to have your capital bombarded shortly after and then have a new superpower formed in your former Royal palace, is quite funny.
34730f No.549574
>>549572
>You had the majority of North America albiet vary sparsly populated and most of the Indian tribes on your side. If France has ignored the war in Europe and focused on the Colonial war I don’t doubt you could have won.
No we couldn't French "colonies" weren't colonies outside of Quebec and Louisiana, they were largely concessions stakes and trading posts, IE you had a handful of trappers living there, largely friendly with the Indians (because they weren't much of them and most of the trappers took wives within the local tribes, because there largely wasn't any women in french "colonies").
Meanwhile the british colonies were actual colonies, populated settlements and lands, France had more lands but population wise it was 10 to 1, even with the indians fighting with the french it was still 1 to 3.
Then you had the french "navy" which has never won a major battle to this very day (I guess you can count Chesapeake bay, but that's the only one and it's already reaching) and you can see that "supporting the colonies" was something very alien thing to say in a war council… The colonial policies was literally "when we luck out and win extra clay in Europe, IE outside strategic objectives, we will trade that for colonial lands", which largely worked (that's how France had so many empty land and Britain/Spain weren't contesting it) until it didn't.
UK had the advantage of being on an island. France never realistically could support it's colonies and keep it's borders secure, especially not with fucking HRE provinces on the other side of natural obstacles…
0f783b No.549579
>>549574
>France never realistically could support it's colonies and keep it's borders secure, especially not with fucking HRE provinces on the other side of natural obstacles…
An attack from Prussia was not going to happen under any circumstance. Prussia was already at war with (aside from France) three other powers (Russia, Austria and Sweden) and owed part of the victory due to Austrian and Russian incompetence. After the Battle of Kunersdorf Prussia’s army was utterly destroyed and they failed to march to Berlin. Prussia was at no point in a position to invade France.
a095c9 No.555139
>>549579
>An attack from Prussia was not going to happen under any circumstance.
From Prussia no.
From Savoy & allies (Switzerland)?
From the Dutch Republic & UK?
From Spain?
And again that's forgetting that the HRE/France alliance was largely a sham and could have turned to war just as quick, so it was out of question to not be ready for it.
Nobody sane would send troops and supplies, by a largely unreliable navy, in any meaningful amounts to colonies when you're surrounded by enemies that can attack you anytime in your real country! That's the luxury UK always had. They could invest massively in a fleet because the fleet would also be used to defend against invading army that would have to cross the sea to actually invade them, it would also mean they would have ample time to prepare for it since it would require massive preparations and they would never be surprised (and it therefore never happened).
Also Spain was largely anti-french (despite kings being of the same house) it's only because France abandoned the colonies to the UK that Charles III after the death of Ferdinand IV immediately reversed that policy and sided with France by the (latter justified) fear of getting their own colonies conquered by UK.
Abandoning the (empty) colonies resulted in France securing it's southern border and gaining a reliable (familial) ally for a generation.
Tell me again how that's a defeat. On the strategic side France completely won the 7 year wars by seriously reducing the amount of threats surrounding it.
An, arguable, loss of influence several centuries down the line is not a reasonable way to measure success or failure (arguable because the US and France have almost always been allies anyway, so what's the real downside? We lots some riches from fur trade for 15 years, won a reliable ally forever. What a terrible loss…).
117860 No.555163
>>548277
I'm starting to see why Russians take massive casualties everywhere they go
117860 No.555167
>>548640
Considering how things are turning out in this Anglo dominated world I'm more inclined to side with the krauts. I mean your prince married a Jewish nig.
117860 No.555173
>>548748
>Russians
Yes Russians go to Russia when they celebrate the great patriotic war and you can get all sorts of fun stories about how someone's grandfather gangraped German women in Berlin or tortured POW's to death. Jews might of led them but Russians are more then happy to be lead the most popular figure in the country is Stalin.