Horribly biased is the new term for factually correct?
Dm63A1 has an Anti-ERA tip quoted to negate the effects of KE ERA by up to 60%, allowing the main round to do the rest and then penetrate the composite behind, is it not unreasonable to assume that statement applies when KE ERA has proven ineffective in a certain combat theatre?
The KH38MT isn’t in Russian or Foreign arsenals, it hasn’t been fired from an aircraft, nor has it been carried by an aircraft. The arguments for it’s existence come from ‘it’s a modular missile’ and ‘the seeker exists’, so it’s existence is purely theoretical, when this was brought up, you decided to deny it, while offering no sources or evidence to the contrary.
Both of these are, as far as we know, correct assumptions, and they hold more weight than the defending parties due to sources, observations and history
See, this is your problem. You don’t have to pick a side.
The world is not a white box with ones and zeros, there goes a lot more in answering such a question, hence no point in it.
Mi-4 was literally out the same year bro calm down with your mis-information campaign.
the American helicopter industry was so bad that they had to steal a Hind to reverse engine it to make better helicopters.
1986 KA-50 was leagues ahead in its design, while being not only safer for pilots, sturdier than any other helicopter of the time. Hence why the Russian Mi-24s were nicknamed “the flying tank”
Ok you gotta explain that one, because that is a wild statement.
I mean one side is a media and research landscape made from 32 countries with generally the lowest corruption and highest press freedom in the world the other side is one country with insane corruption and abysmal freedom so i dont really know how someone could not be biased towards one side.
