You wouldn’t want Stingers buffed, trust me.
- I hate to break it to you, but calling someone wrong, doesn’t make them wrong, but please, continue to pull more straws :) it’s very funny
I ask the same of you. You and @H_ngma or @Jεcka couldn’t even confirm a date for dm73. You both pulled different years.
Would they?
Except that isn’t realistic. In that scenario it is likely in favor of Germany for Ground battles at least, the others are a toss up. But there is what 4-5 T-90s per 1 leopard?
They have an even earlier prototype if I recall. @I_MiikaL_I
@MightyBaozi
Can you explain to this man, that THEY haven’t cancelled the procurement of the leo2a8s for Italy? It was literally in the document You sent.
Just as it also says they’re trying to develop their own tank.
1 Like
If you unironically believe the T-90M is better than the 2A7, or the Eurofighter is worse than the Su-30SM, Then boy do I have a bucket of Ice water for yoh
😂 man, you love to put words in other peoples mouth.
That’s another piece of rusian propaganda. During the cold war - aquiring your foe’s machinery was a standard practice, remember the whole foxbat situation. They got it, evaluated it (probably had a good laugh) and then used it for training.
The industry that was so bad that they’ve been able to just snatch this cowbarn using their own heli.
1 Like
Given that I quoted your exact words, where am
i putting them in your mouth?
On that note Russian missile and gunsight technology was so bad they had to steal a downed F-86 Sabre and “steal” an AIM-9.
I explained it further down, you know what down is right? That’s where it was, had you kept reading
AFAIK Sikorsky was building biplanes untill he’s been able to build a heli of his desigh, which was vs-300, still later than FW, but designs are different though.
Just like the US took a lot from T-62s and T-64s
Neither does thinking youre right make you right.
So? You can just take my BAAAINBw source, its a pretty good one and a lot better than nothing which was your source.
1 Like
DUDE WHAT? How wilfully ignorant are you?
- Paul Cornu(France) built the first manned helicopter to lift off vertically under its own power in 1907. It flew only a few meters off the ground.
- Igor Sikorsky (Kyiv-born engineer who emigrated to the United States in 1919) built the VS-300 in 1939. His Sikorsky R-4, introduced in 1942, became the first helicopter in the world to enter mass production and operational service with the US Army. The USSR only began their own helicopter work after WW2, and out of Sikorsky designs. The Mi-1 was the very first Soviet helicopter in 1950.
What kind of deranged cope is this? The AH-1Q in 1969 with its TOW and stabilized gunsight is weaponry wise on par with the 1980s Mi-24V. The American helicopter industry always was and still is the most advanced in the world.
The 1970s AH-56 Cheyenne had a better design than the Ka-50. It was so good that the USAF helped kill the project because it would have competed with the A-10. Interservice rivalry at its finest. Its design was so ahead of its time that push propellers are what we’re seeing again now with the Raider and similar.
4 Likes
If we are gonna skip that far back, then Leonard di Vinci has everyone beat
Also a country doesn’t kill a design if it’s good XD holy copium
1 Like
You:
1 Like
Such as what? Smoothbore was tested on the T95 as well as APFSDS. Composite armor was also tested on the T95 well before the introduction of the T62 and T64. Just because the Soviets put into production first doesn’t mean everyone else copied them. Most countries had their own programs independent of each other.
Yes they do, lmao.
Things that would have been fine get killed all the time for various reasons. Politics, budgetary reasons, no longer required. The f-20 springs to mind, nothing wrong with it at all but overshadowed by the f-16, no foreign sales etc.
Xm2001 is another great example.
1 Like
Competitive designs get killed sure, but the mystic Cyrus was exclaiming how they killed it because it was “too good” which is either gross incompetence from the USA military, or, the AH-56 was utter crap.
Either way it was never used, so we’ll never know how good it was.
It’s like playing poker, you spent the money to get into the game, why would you toss a winning hand? You wouldn’t.
Therefore:
1 Like
I mean, requirements change, or a great system might not meet the ones that actually matter despite doing great everywhere else, or the vehicle may be outstanding but costs an absolute fortune.
The best vehicle doesn’t always win and there’s a plethora of reasons why that might be.
1 Like
(Disclaimer this is from Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt, but it does mention the controversy with the USAF)
1 Like
