68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
68 points (92.5% liked)
GenZedong
4542 readers
30 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
how does russia benefit from deliberately using inferior equipment and not going all out? they don't want a long, protracted conflict.
I don't think they're using inferior equipment, but they couldn't really go all-out in the beginning without killing a huge number of civilians (unlike NATO, which jumps straight to carpet bombing)
The one thing that people on both sides agree with is that Russia wants to control the economy of Ukraine. Destroying the infrastructure and people of ukraine excessively undermines that millitary objective. Unless you believe that he's evil and just wants to do bad things.
The same way the US benefits from getting rid of old equipment, which y'all chucklefucks been celebrating as grand strategy. But more importantly, it's because they don't need to deploy nor reveal their main forces. It keeps their enemies intelligence unreliable and it keeps their forces ready for further conflict from the bloodthirsty deranged barbarians in the US.
Nobody ever wants a long, protracted conflict but it doesn't mean they don't prepare for one.
They don't go all out because:
The effective number of a weapon is not the raw number but the amount multiplied by the availability rate.
Mature platforms have higher availability rates and a larger stockpile of wear parts and ammo.
The numbers available can sustain attrition for however long the conflict may endure so they don't run out of crucial weapons system at inopportune times.
The latest equipment may still be undergoing service tests or may have a limited amount of trained crews so any deployment would be more like what Zebra mission was to the M26 Pershing.
Combat capable forces are still needed elsewhere for security/deterrence and in case South Ossetia gets invaded by Georgia again.
Mobilizing the reserves would shrink the working population hurting the economy.
Going all out might also cause a full on intervention since NATO membership isn't actually needed for that to happen. SMO like rules are why the US in Vietnam didn't clash with China as it did in Korea.
Availability rates of the F-15 vs F-35 vs F-22
In spite of how much older the F-15 air frames are, given the same number of planes the F-15s would in combat outnumber the F-35s or F-22s two to one.