/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

I'd just like to remind all east Asians, that if this kicks off the fascist mob in the streets won't care that you're actually Phillipino, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Mongol etc

To them you'll just be another slant eyed chink

>>5854
as someone whos half one of these nations it is annyoing when you have usually older boomer relatives thinking if tell others theyre actually filipino, vietnames, japanese, korean, mongol, and NOT chinese because if they hysterically denounce china bad, that stormfags actually care

>>5867
noooo you don't get it, you win a war by having good K/D (allegedly)!!

>>5868
Yeah, only by being fucking campers.

So, about the ukraine?

people of el R5 larping as army\marines

You call them Narco as an attempt to delegitimize the true people of Mexico.

There is no government of Mexico beyond the independent collectives of communities.

50,000 Palestinian children have been murdered.

sinaloan sovietlarpers "los rusos"

Warm and fuzzy.

>>5840
and ill do it again if you keep complaining

ak that shoots shovels that explode

>>5706
>AK
the only modern weapon based enough to be put on flags
the weapon of the revolutionary and insurgent everywhere
but I dont feel any specific way about the deaths

Wearing protection at protests is illegal in Germany. The term is Passivbewaffnung, being passively armed. Police can beat you up without provocation on your part, aside from the provocation of being "armed". The press will then report that the police had a conflict with "armed" protestors. Then you can look at the commentary by boomers on social media as well as by reputable mainstream pundits saying in unison that it's sensible for the police to defend itself and the public against violent protestors.

>>5825
OH SHEIẞE HE'S GOT SAFETY GOGGLES

>>5820
worker gear is more expensive than black clothes though (and might get confiscated)

>>5808
Probably a smoke grenade.

Listen to this and draw your own comclusion

So in the context of ukraine receiving some F16, I was thinking about how air defence has progressed enough that modern jets have kinda become overkill (and even worse, overpriced) for the task they can actually accomplish without being shot down, namely, being launch platform for long range missiles and doing anti recon/suicide drone patrol duty (like seen in the iran demonstration attack against israel).
For these task, using a full blown, state of the art, 5th gen stealth jet airplane is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources. A ww2 style fighter would do the job just as well for a fraction of the price.

And indeed, ukrainian seem to have apparently used an old yak 52 training plane for shooting down drones with great success. So much that russia apparently shot an iskander at it.
Given that you can buy a yak for around 50.000€ and an iskander is estimated at around 3.000.000$, I think theres a lot of potential in going back to cheap non jet aircrafts for many tasks.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/18/deploying-drones-and-missiles-russia-is-trying-to-blow-up-ukraines-world-war-i-style-yak-52-dogfighter/

>>5262
>ukrainian seem to have apparently used an old yak 52 training plane for shooting down drones with great success.
>forbes
LMAO no. Russia shot down those several times. Jet fighters are needed, as are slower low-tech aircraft, as are SAMs. This is what combined warfare is. The USSR leaned heavily on air-defenses and made the best in the world, but it still had a significant aircraft fleet, because air defenses alone are not getting the job done. Drones have vulnerabilities, and low-tech strike aircraft are niche.
>For these task, using a full blown, state of the art, 5th gen stealth jet airplane is completely unnecessary and a waste of resources.
True, which is why the Su-57 has been used against priority high-threat targets rather than doing what the Su-34 and Su-25 do. the Su-57 can absolutely mount the same weapons as those two, but it's a waste of time.

Additionally only low tech aircraft is a good way of high losses in a high-tech peer-conflict, or even a near-peer conflict. In the Gulf-war the A-10 had some of the highest loss rates of ANY aircraft in that war and many of its missions were accomplished by F-16s and F-15Ds at standoff ranges, in part because the US coalition lacked proper SAM defenses and relied only on air-superiority rather than a combined arms approach, they were lucky the Iraqis were weaker and more disorganized.

>>5264
>LMAO no.
no what ? do you deny you can shoot down a recon drone with a simple motor airplane ?

>Russia shot down those several times
even if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace. And using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.

>Jet fighters are needed, as are slower low-tech aircraft, as are SAMs. This is what combined warfare is
no shit, way to miss the point.

>rather than doing what the Su-34 and Su-25 do.
any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane

>only low tech aircraft
I didnt advocate for having ONLY them. But do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s ?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>5270
Your spacing is ass, please don't do this.
>no what ?
You realize that people can scroll up and see exactly what I'm saying "no" to right? The fact is that Ukraine has failed to shoot down drones with its trainers, since it's literally pulling WW-1 shit, with people firing handguns out of open cockpits. There's literally a Russian drone video where they try and fail to shoot it down.
>even if they did, the idea was more using it into your own safe airspace.
*laughs in long range SAM*
You realize that Ukraine has been using very long range stand-off weapons like cruise missiles and are STILL getting shot down, right? Only a few days ago an Su-35 shot down a MiG-29 - which was using a HARM missile in a long-range ground-strike - from over 200km away, with an R-37. Earlier in the war the S-300V4 set a similar record kill from a similar distance of over 200km. An S-400 shot down an Su-27 over Kiev earlier in the war from 150km away. Pantsir, Osa and Tor SPAAG/SAMs have shot down numerous low-flying missiles, drones and other aircraft.
>using any missile to shoot it down, you're still paying too much.
If you're an idiot using patriot anti-ballistic long-range missiles against drones. A single Tor missile costs maybe a couple thousand dollars. A single yak-52 costs 50-100 thousand dollars, so you're dead wrong.
>way to miss the point.
I didn't miss your point. I don't disagree in the necessity of low-tech aircraft, but not like Ukraine is doing, and frankly an attack chopper would do just as well, if not better.
>any jet fighter will be a magnitude more expensive than a regular motor plane
Any jet fighter would also be magnitudes more effective.
>do you really need a jet for lobbing FAB-500s
In an SAM-heavy air-space like Ukraine? YES.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2642
>The idea of it going to 2025
There is a lesson there. Stop being emotional, stop eating the propaganda slop, study everything and look closely at the serious people involved in war and political theory. Honestly I didn't need to do half of that to be sure that this stupid war would last a while so if you were wrong you really need to revamp your way of thinking