U.S. Navy’s Costliest Carrier Was Delivered Without Elevators to Lift Bombs

I am more interested in the super projects the space force can come up with.

F-35 three service fuckup. Crayon eaters, chair force and navy are all involved. Army and air force were involved with Osprey, but army bailed out on the first sign of trouble in 80's. For 'muhreens their purely own fuck up would be expeditionary fighting vehicle. For army Abrams is arguably bigger fuckup than Bradley, just due to using turbine. For navy Littoral Combat Ship was far bigger mistake than Ford-class. USAF has had plenty of their own white elephants, B-1B and B-2 contain plenty of stupidity as programs.

For coasties, their stupidest piece of equipment are C-27J Spartans they inherited from chair force and army.

But those worked without fucking magic.

How about they integrate a couple of load cells into it.
Measuring weight is not exactly rocket science.
You could even get by without, since you can determine the weight of the platform by the amount of effort it takes to move it.

Just fucking why

Attached: donaldsutherlandhawkeye.jpg (600x356, 54.21K)

The U.S.S. Calvin Coolidge would be underbudget and ahead of schedule.

Attached: silentcal.jpg (486x599, 30.02K)

It's even better if you conside that it carries $100,000,000 airplanes that can be destroyed by missiles that are also at least an order-of-magnitude cheaper.

The replacement for their main Amphibious Vehicle is a running joke.

Attached: a85162e4313ee8f0884597dfc4515e944c21e35edfb92312353c33227026ba47.gif (322x175, 1.75M)

People will either forget it exists, or constantly shit on it for being too sensible and reliable, instead of constantly doing retarded shit.

How about making the whole re-arming procedure completeöy robotic while at it?

Does one really need a magnetic elevator to vertically catapult planes into the air at 9g?

In other words pic related.
What the fuck is wrong with America? Can we ally with someone else?!?

Attached: Guillotine_16.jpg (836x1600, 97.04K)

Because no one else wants to take you in and we're obligated to protect you because we're attached by the hip. Now shut your yap and drink your malk, daddy America needs to find a way to combine two super magnets into a perpetual moving engine to power a billion dollar helicopter carriers all the while cooled by downgraded jet fuel reserves for cost saving reasons.

Attached: d8141feef7b64d418dba96e6b9f1d44a61c86471399c41f0c2270135d70e78a8.png (365x389, 32.56K)

So it would be the first working stealth ship!

Fuck that I'm allying with the ant people.

Attached: latest.jpg (403x617, 71.43K)

Sure the F-35 Merkel can perform the role of elevator for them.

The turbine engine is one of the greatest assets of the Abrams. The only problem with it was fuel consumption during idle which, while it took an embarrassingly long time to get an APU that wasn't retarded and mounted on the back of the tank over the tail light, they did finally get right with one that sat on the back of the turret bustle stowage rack. While on a road march or in combat maneuvers, the turbine engine is more efficient than a conventional piston or diesel engine in terms of weight, horse power and YES fuel efficiency per ton. Not to mention that its nearly silent and leaves no diesel plume or dust cyclone behind it.

Those are nice numbers but an argument like that is like saying why bother with training your men and giving them more than a sharpened stick when they can be killed by a child with a hand grenade?

Christ even Ai's created by the Imperium can be corrupted by chaos because they are more alive than the tau.

Attached: bustle APU.jpg (952x639 42.54 KB, 93.97K)

Orks can’t be corrupted by Chaos either
But that’s mostly because any Ork that openly worships a god besides Gork & Mork is going to be krumped something fierce by the other orks

Isn't that kinda self defeating when it has an infrared-signature BEHIND cover?

How come that if we compare the M1 abrams with the Leopard 2, which have similar weight, power and power to weight, we come to the exact opposite conclusion.

ON PAPER and on paper only.
A gas turbine is more efficient if and only if it run at full regime meaning your tank only guzzle less fuel at it's top cruise speed.
Guess what? Since it's not a fucking helicopter THEY NEVER REACH FULL REGIME unless you're on perfectly flat plain and on a terrain of perfectly even resistance.
It's a tank made to run on a highway…

Add the maintenance nightmare (need to stop every 4 hours in dusty conditions), the simple fact that the fleet of fuel trucks following his fuel-guzzling majesty simply CAN'T go that fast on rough terrain, the fact that you start fire on the run if you're in grassland (lol let alone the thermal signature), the fact that you run on HIGHLY FLAMMABLE JET FUEL, etc… and a diesel engine end up being so much better at everything a gas turbine can do (except arctic operations).

The problem with turbine isn't just idle, even if idling is the biggest problem, turbine is basically as efficient at full throttle as it is at any lower throttle setting. Reasoning behind turbine goes to early 60's. Back then US Army determined that turbines were the way for the future. In reality issues with turbo-diesel engines were dealt with in 60's and 70's, turbo lag was dealt with variable vane turbochargers to make 'em manageable. Advantages gas turbine offers with smaller size are offset by extra fuel those need, extra fuel needed to feed the turbine more than takes up space needed for more efficient engine. This where development of Abrams began as MBT-70 had been abandoned. I suspect gas turbine stayed on Abrams because people doing current work on it were serving under people that had determined advantages of turbines that mostly didn't exist at that point. In final rounds fuel efficiency had been determined to be an non-factor because US Army would be fighting in close proximity of their fuel depots in Germany.

In virtually every tank trials since 80's done by western countries all other features of Abrams have always been completely overshadowed by extra logistical burden its massive fuel consumption causes. One of two things applies all export customers of Abrams. They either get those at expense of US taxpayers or they are involved in propping up petro-dollar. Only exception is Australia and they bought only relatively small amount of tanks, their rationale is because if they ever need more tanks, they can get almost instant delivery because US stockpile of tanks exceeds US needs for tanks.

When we get into initial model of Abrams, it is probably the most perfect example of US Army getting equipment that they know to be defective. They had to buy it then or risk getting entire program cancelled. As result M1IP and M1A1 followed relatively soon after.

It isn't rough terrain that is biggest problem when it comes to running at full throttle all the time. It is other traffic, in your marching column and general lack of information what the fuck is going on. Has the other company or battalion reached starting point for the next phase of attack, so we don't get outflanked. Tanks run on roads for most of the time, probably ones that are actually highways, not freeways/motorways, but actual highways.

Jet fuel is just as flammable as diesel and less flammable than gasoline. Gas turbine is potentially more flexible when it comes to fuel, but it isn't worth higher fuel consumption.

No one in their right mind argues this, and you are retatded. They use those engines so they can accept any fuel type, if fuel is seized from the enemy it can always power the fleet regardless.

Bruh, all American military is retarded. So are our troops.
We're mainly good for letting others do the dirty work, then swooping in at the last minute, winning a firefight, and taking all the glory.

*all American military tech

No they use those engines because Lycoming lost (all) the bids on helicopter engines and the top brass and politicians decided they needed two companies to produce gas turbines so that GE wouldn't be in a monopoly position.
Suddenly gas turbine engines became miracle engines that have great fuel efficiency (if you never need torque), can run on any fuel (if you want to have to completely take them apart and scrub them with a toothbrush after 24h of use), is super silent (because it's well known that the fucking thing weighting 60 ton on tracks main noise is the engine, otherwise it would be moving silently) and bring back your loved ones to life.

So they bought some to put them in tanks.

Whether or not they worked well has never even impacted the decision.
After the gulf war and all the problems with them were clear as day the US army petitioned multiple time to change them to diesel as MTU was offering an off the shelf design for them for export.
The Army brass agreed and recognized it should change to diesel and it was supposed to with be an integral part of the A2 upgrade.
And every time it's shot down for the exact same reason: Abrams engines are what keeps the light running on a US engine manufacture that isn't GE.

And before you wonder the original XM1 were equipped with the 1470HP Continental diesel engine they used on the MBT-70 that had every bit as much performance as the AGT 1500 if not even more and was virtually the same as the German MTUs…

Who the fuck is in charge of granting military industrial contracts? It has to be jews, I mean, how else do you get so many billions with enough grease on top for graft or kickbacks or whatever only to steal even more, pocket the rest and you can't even build proper elevators?
I wish I could personally torture these people to death, we should be on the fucking moon right now with a space elevator with all the money these eil bastards just waste.

In realty who in Charge of all the money World Wide.. think
Who prints the money?
Who handles the money?
What really ha control of Fed Reserve?

US Army now runs it only on jet fuel. The idea behind multi-fuel engine requirements was that they could run tanks and trucks with both diesel and jet fuel. Running diesel engine with jet fuel generally increases lubrication oil consumption, but it can be done. Running gas turbine with diesel increases fouling and will require more maintenance. It wasn't about captured enemy fuel, it was about being able to support ground forces from fuel depots originally intended for air forces. The thing is while turbine requires less maintenance, any maintenance on field conditions is extremely limited.

That is before we take cost of engine into account. Turbines are more expensive than diesels.

Lycomings gas turbine side is now part of Honeywell. They still produce engines for small regional airliners, business jets and training fighters and they still produce engines for Chinooks and plenty of smaller helicopters.
Pratt & Whitney still exists.
One funniest things here is that US actually manufactured that MTU883 engine on license. They just did it to export it to Israel, who get those for Merkava IV's as military aid.

I could only imagine what the U.S.S. James K. Polk would be like.

No. Even in advanced militaries that kind of tech is on very few soldiers, and even then requires active searching. Limiting who can notice your tank to a tiny fraction of the enemy soldiers, and only if they're actually looking for it, is a huge advantage.

separating the yucatan from mexico southern US clay and strapping on some engines.

Gotta justify that defense budget, man.

ALL soviet and Chinese tanks including old as fuck T-54 had IR imagers.
In fact for decades the soviets (and soviet armed armies) had a clear night operation advantage until the mid-70's because of how widespread that shit was and how it wasn't in NATO arsenals until the 2nd gen started to be more widespread.
The same is true for 3rd gen IR imagers (AKA: "thermals"), the soviet had tech similar to what was on western tanks the problem was that by then they didn't have the money to fit them on everything so only the commanders versions of the T-80's got them at first, then on T-80U but the economical crisis of the 80's made it impossible to set up proper mass production chains.
Paying export customers in the 90's all got them however, including Cyprus which was when we realized that 80's soviet stuff wasn't worse than the same era Leo2/M1 thermal sights.

China is the same, except they were set up for mass production and all of their Type-90 (which they didn't adopt but was widely exported to shitty 3rd world countries. We're talking the guys with no money to buy slightly upgraded second hand soviet shit here: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc…) all have thermal imagers that are actually a bit better than the last soviet ones. They off course retrofitted their Type 80 with them as a mid-life upgrade (which became know Type 96).

So that was the situation in the 90's… 20+ year ago.
In this day and age FLIR makes fucking phone add-ons!

To find a working tank on the planet that doesn't have thermal imaging you need to go to the real shitholes like sub-Saharan Africa or places that have been at war since the Soviet Union crumbled.

The problem is that the death of the carrier is a certainty when fighting any comparable foe, whereas some kid tossing a grenade just right is a hail mary.

lol

You're basically admitting that US military is built to fight pic related and can't handle peer wars.

Attached: 18eab832e0f0b30cba4f575425da3b5a.jpg (736x1480, 126.04K)

Is there a magical engine that runs stone cold?

Seeing that the tank was made to use the German autobahns to quickly charge to the front line of western Europe, it seems fair enough that it will run best on highways.
This is the bullshit that everyone does whenever turbine engines are brought up. They list problems found with literally every kind of engine on earth and try to make it sound like its exclusively a turbine engine problem.

Attached: kursk-wreck.jpg (2000x1336 110.88 KB, 599.61K)

Genuine curiosity, if turbines are so great why is the Abrams the only major tank to use one? It's not a cost issue, the Leclerc is the most expensive tank in the world and it uses a diesel engine. Abrams is still shit-tier for not using an autoloader

But it's not like you'll be slowly sending one ASM at a time towards the carrier with lots of forewarning; one missile is four orders of magnitude cheaper than one carrier and you'll be firing more than one.

There was a project during the cold war (Britain iirc) to use stored refrigerant to temporarily mask the heat signature of tanks to avoid detection. It was scrapped because it was more effective to just use a fan and dilute the exhaust until it wasn't noticeable.
But no, most diesels run far colder than a turbine and have far less thermal signature to give them away. Face facts, this is a weakness of the M1.

The Iraqis were building their own t-72 clones, so no, they did not have any of the equipment that you normally got on a T-72. Also, the 90s was a very long time ago. You can get passive thermal sensors at walmart now.

I'll take "things burgers like to pretend don't real" for $600, Alex.

The T80, Russia's best MBT had a turbine engine until the wall fell and they switched to a multi-fuel diesel because the Ukraine held all the tooling and spare parts for the turbines. The Swedish S tank actually pioneered the gas turbine powered tank and no one seems to ever bitch and moan about that vehicle.

All tanks are so hot that its obvious that they are around. Even if the engine is somehow not showing up on FLIR, the running gear will be. Its a retarded thing to call a weakness because it affects literally all ground vehicles. They get hot.

THERE IT IS! EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH HAD THERMALS OUT THE ASS 20 YEARS AGO UNTIL YOU BRING UP AN EXAMPLE THAT THEY DIDN'T! You know Iraq had tons of genuine T-54s and BMPs that according to you, should have seen the abrams clear as day but instead when they came under fire from them, they couldn't see them and thought they were under air assault because they couldn't see or HEAR them?

This is the biggest problem faggots that suck off ASMs make. They think of a carrier as nothing but a giant floating defenseless target that redfor always knows the exact location of, and not something that's got an entire network of aircraft working to defend and also conceal it. You cant hit what you cant see, and it will take a LOT of effort to even locate the carrier group with constant air harassment and anti submarine patrols.

Attached: 640px-E-2C_Hawkeye_Bear_Aces.jpg (640x427, 50.26K)

Delicious kuruminha plz post more

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (310x318, 117.18K)

It's worse, they had mudslimes driving those.
The same people that ganged up three times on the jews in the late 60's and early 70's with an insane numerical advantage AND a clear tech advantage (ATGMs, night vision, integrated AA) and still got their shit pushed miserably (with Centurions that weren't safe from WWII SU-100, blowing up HUNDREDS of T-62 when by the jew and latter US reports those were equivalent to better than even M60).
Mudslimes turn everything into shit, that's the real power of Islam.

Attached: iraqi Abrams cemetery.jpg (1200x774, 175.27K)

You didn't actually answer my question–if turbines are so great, why do so many current-gen MBTs still use diesel engines? Could you summarize the pros and cons of each instead of just getting defensive?

Even if you can't pinpoint the exact location immediately, a carrier group doesn't exactly leave a small footprint. And the thing is, if the enemy's carrier is constantly on the move and staying out of sight to avoid ASM launches, then the missiles have done their job anyways. Their destructive potential, even if not realized, has served to prevent the carrier group from committing to a major attack and allow its movements to be controlled by the enemy, which is a strategic advantage.

The problem with gas turbine as tank engine is that it operates best in conditions that doesn't exist in practice. In practice tanks almost never travel at full throttle, almost always military convoys tend to be slowed down by lack of information and coordination.
One of those thing is really major issue, air filters and non line of sight thermal signature are only minor issues, both related to how much air turbine draws in, so they might have clean filters more often and get more easily detected in certain conditions without direct line of sight.
The Big issue is the insane amount of fuel turbine hogs and that means extra supply trucks complicating logistics. That means much heavier load on logistics on offensive operations, especially when it comes to expeditionary warfare halfway around the world.
Reading comprehension. Prevalence of night vision has changed over time. But generally there isn't major difference between Arab countries and sub-Saharan Africa when it comes to shitty military procurement decisions, both are retarded but in different ways, most in Arabs spending a fuck ton of more money on gear they don't know how to use. Niggers usually fail in spectacular way with shitty equipment, Arabs tend to do it with more modern equipment. Just look at what is going on in Yemen. Saudis have the best equipment money can buy and utterly fail utilize it properly.

I'm generally amused over how much burgers defend Abrams. As whole it is probably bigger fuckup than Bradley.

T-80 also used it. Turbine is the main reason why it is far less common than T-72/T-90-series tanks. Even late versions of T-80 ditched the turbine in favor of opposed piston diesel that was further development of T-64's engine.
Leclerc's pricetag is inflated by low production numbers driving unit costs up and different accounting practices. If US would calculate costs of Abrams same way, it would be more expensive than its current official pricetag is at the moment.

Leclerc also has a sort of clusterfuck of gas turbine as engine. It has small gas tubine that acts as APU while not running the engine and it acts as turbocharger while running the engine. Wärtsilä (a Finnish diesel manufacturer) bought SACM (manufacturer of Leclercs engine) in 1993. Leclercs engine is ironically a rare case of defense contractor shilling against their own product, Wärtsilä has lobbied for MTU883. Tank engine division of former SACM is a loss generating business, train and marine diesel parts of business were and still are profitable. French military refused to change engine on later batches of Leclerc due to national pride and arrogance, MTU engine was and still is far superior powerplant. If and when Leclercs replacement will be delayed, extending spare parts contracts for the engine will probably end up being extremely expensive for French Army.

The diesel version of T-80 was the one produced in Ukraine. Latest T-72 version has always been just as good as contemporary T-80 version when it comes to performance and far better tank if costs are included in the equation. Having three different tanks with essentially equal performance was one of biggest Soviet fuckups during cold war. Production of T-64 should have been terminated on the moment T-72 entered service and T-64's should have been relegated to second line units. T-80 should have never existed if people in charge of SU had any sense.
Might have something to do with the fact that all S tanks are in museum. Dual powerplant and transmission setup of S tank was so great success that they didn't even consider anything similar on their later tank and armored fighting vehicle projects.
Turbine powered tanks gets even hotter.

Technically it's not, it's just a way more cost effective solution.
The SACM engine use the gas turbine as a supercharger allowing Leclerc to move from to go from 0 to 32 km/h under 5 seconds IIRC with a direct transmission of power to the track, meaning it beats a sport car in the first second of acceleration.

Of course the downside is it's super finicky and super expensive, but if it's been tuned properly on paper it means you can dodge incoming tank shells in between the moment they're shot and the moment they land.
In practical use it's dubious you could actually pull it off obviously and it certainly doesn't justify the insane cost of building and maintaining a gas turbine just as a turbo when a regular turbo isn't as good (but isn't that worse either) but so much simpler…

It's a typical thing that is a great feature of engineering and technology but which has little gain in practical use.

On it.

It failed them in the Chechnyan war, the maintenance regimen couldnt keep upwith the demand that a tank has to be available 24/7 in an insurgency scenario. Thats why that powerplant was abandoned, not magic ukrainian engines that somehow Russia cant replicate despite having plans, and the tooling and factories for turboshafts.

If anyone's wondering what the hell does this retarded leafpost supposed to mean: there's a special olympics related to the russcuck language whether they should say "на Украине" ("on Ukraine") since it's more melodic and being used in a few other similar cases or "в Украине" (a regular "in Ukraine") since it's overall more common. I cannot recall such olympics in English language tho, which means there's a possibility our famous putin-shilling leaf is actually either a russcuck with VPN or an ethnic russcuck living in leafland.

Attached: o4g3j1iRvex9kEzkf4XA_1479156638554.jpg (496x521, 272.75K)

In the book I am reading by General F.W Von Mellenthin, he said on the Ukraine not in Ukraine.

Attached: Katyusha 033.jpg (1348x1584, 798.66K)

I still fail to find any existing special olympics in English language on that topic. This is exclusively Eastern Slavic thing, even if our fellow leaf can prove himself living in Leafland he's still a russcuck speaker and an ethnic russcuck.

Is this a dumb new word filter or am I having a stroke?

It's a common term in Russian language of today. On the internet it is, at least.

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Special Olympics

T-80s are still in use in Russia northernmost tank units because one clear advantage gas turbine have over diesel is for arctic operations as less susceptible to breaking due to thermal shock.

The Houtis in Yemen use T-80s more than Ukraine. As far as anyone knows Ukraine is the one place that DOESN'T use their T-80s, they use T-64s.
What little T-80s they have that work they try to export them to line their po to finance an upgrade of their facilities.

Pic related are the ones newly upgraded from the 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (Northern Fleet, Pechenga).
Yes, Russian fleets have mechanized brigades, don't ask.

Or he just like to trigger you by reminding you your country names literally means "march" (of Russia) because even your country name is related to Russia.

It's a dumb poster, same difference.

(Forgot pic).

Attached: 3iVYnE_5v3k.jpg (2048x1153, 484.87K)

Russians who speak a lot of English tend to do it as well.

Literal translation is "edge," but yeah, this is true.

You are so miserable you managed to fuck up 2 times with these words. First of all, I've been refuting this nonsense multiple times already proving "край" is pan-Slavic land-related word and won't be distracted from the leaf revealing his real identity. Second of all, russcuck country's name is in fact related to us since "rus" were svear merchants assimilated in Kyiv.

So, who is mister leaf? Can he at least provide some photos from leafistan?

Ah yes so well done was your refutation that you still saw the need to reassert in sterling terms the extent to which your anus has prolapsed from whatever slight the slavs inflicted on your ego.
Seriously I get being assmad about history or whatever the fuck is going on, but you're getting five alarm booty blasted on a shitty butanese basket weaving exchange. Why on earth do you think it matters that some rando somewhere in the world is being edgy about your country on the bleeding internet? Why the fuck are you so hung up on this shit on a platform that has no real world influence?

Have you noticed that production quality of all sorts of things dropped recently? I'm not talking about military technology only, but about everyday consumer market products too.

He's a Ukrainian and their people have nothing left except trying to prove they aren't Russians. Just look on and politely stifle your laughter as he continues to shriek autistically.

Attached: pet_russian.webm (720x720, 1.25M)

Generally speaking, yes.

It's a hohol-thing, you wouldn't understand.

Yeah, shit keeps getting loose all the time. All the shit.
Maybe muh infinite debt economy and based lolberg kikes really did their number. Now infinite "growth" is already finalized and all products have been made to break down everywhere.
Thanks mutts.

Attached: Arno Breker Deutscher Junge.jpg (373x500 41.3 KB, 24.89K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (816x459, 945.06K)

Guys, I do appreciate your right for shitposting. But there's no way I'm gonna let this fake leaf to get away with his revealing.

Dear fake leaf, please be so kind as to prove you at least live in Canada.

Attached: Chef-Ainsley.png (594x393, 352.44K)

Is Ukraine the Canada of Russia?

Most importantly it is more reliable solution and on top of that it is part of engine family with lot of users on multiple different vehicles. That means that it will have future upgrades and certain support in future.
It has 1 second advantage over UAE version with MTU engine in 0 to 32km/h. Most tanks have that advantage in the first second, due to tanks having insanely high torque engines. Tanks don't have wheel spin issues that might come up with sports cars due to more grip area and gargantuan weight.
It needs to use rather exotic materials due to rather extreme compression with that turbo. It is has 2/3 displacement of typical tank engine.
Amen. Whole engine screams about solution seeking a problem. When it comes to technical details and engineering, it is brilliant idea, potentially a bad one in practice… like it turned out to be.

As whole Leclerc is victim of end of the Cold War. That alone cut French orders to half or less of what was originally planned. Even earlier on GIAT lost the Spanish deal to KMW with Lince that eventually turned out into Leopard 2. That happened mostly due to licensing issues. Spain was originally supposed to get a substantially lighter heavily modified version Leopard 2 called Lince, in the end they got pretty regular Leo2A5 variant with couple Spanish specific modifications to keep costs down with increased parts commonality with rest of Leo2's. Then in 90's Germans simply flooded the market with surplus Leopard 2A4's at 10th of their actual cost. They had thousands of tanks they didn't need and by selling 'em they could at least ensure spare parts business for KMW.

My guess is that break even point for SACM and later on to Wärtsilä was somewhere around 2000 units sold. By the time serial production of Leclerc started and it entered service it was obvious that they weren't going to get even close to that number.

Attached: IMG_2224.png (680x559, 114.28K)

I wish.
France had around 1500 AMX-30 MBT + all the variants (SPG, SPAAG, SAM, Recovery, Engineering, even fucking tactical missile launchers) in total it was around 2500 chassis.
426 Leclercs were ordered, variant included (recovery only. In fact not even enough recovery Leclercs to retire the AMX-30 recovery vehicles)
Out of those not even 260 are in line the other have either been mothballed, cancelled or sold (the French army pretend they have 426 despite the fact that no-one really know how much of the original order was fulfilled and the fact that there is only 4 tank formation with them at 60 tank each).

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1024x486, 66.11K)

Get on my level pleb.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (640x379, 69.39K)

Found a pic of the last drawing.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (540x377, 35.09K)

You discovered me, I'm made Donal Trump president by hacking all voting machines, only Soros' machines were accurate and correct. At the time I'm actually a Ethnic Russian in Canada working to establish greater numbers so we can declare Alberta and Nunavut a Russian-speaking autonomous state.

I know exactly what makes you mad hohol, because you're a ""nation"" of clones with no personality, what makes one of you mad makes all of you mad. All pigs are the same - a bunch of polish-lithuanians speaking russian and pretending to have a deep and ancient history even though your nation is more recent than Canada. Your behavior in person and your behavior as a culture are lower even than Jews or Muslims, who at least have some self-respect.

So, in short:
1. Turns out our favorite """Canadian""" russaboo shill is actually a russian-speaking person;
2. He refuses to provide any evidence he is at least an ethnic russian living in Canada, not just some fag with VPN.
I apologize to the real Canadians for a fair share of my "fucking leaf" posts. Who knew Canadians weren't to blame.

Attached: 14670453589600.png (453x604, 391.02K)

If leafland had way more corruption and incompetence you probably couldn't really tell the difference between the two.

Please keep triggering Ukraine, it is amusing.

That's some mighty fine detective work you've done here, lad.

The Bradley is inexscuable shit that slid on by with seal clubbing expeditions….and got dumped for something else once the going got tough because IEDs love it.

The Osprey is a successful, if risky, program. Its neat.

Yeah, there it is. The replacement was, IIRC, going to be more expensive than a fucking Abrams. It was trash. The current vehicle is trash too, but at least its paid for.

The other things that was a fucking scandal was the mobile 155mm replacement got scrapped because to was attached to the Future Combat Systems program. It was one of the things that was actually needed and a good idea, like the guided High Explosive round not for the arty, but for the 120mm main gun on the Abrams, which could have been adapted for the 105mm Stryker, giving that hunk of fail some use.

We actually did need another mobile artillery platform, and currently rock the shittiest one in any service that has serious guns.

I take it back. There were TWO systems that were meant to replace the M109, Crusader and NLOS. Both were better in every way.

So was the Sherman, it had shitty offroad capabilities compared to everything else. Its only real flaw.

While a few systems we have are only good for seal clubbing, the only land military on the planet I'd honestly be scared that would beat our asses is in fact, Russia. And that's if they could deploy. And that's only in a specific theatre and scenario.

China? Hahahahaha lol.

India? Double lol.

Everyone else's militaries would be too tiny and would just get blasted away. So yeah the US Military is shittier than it has a right to be, but nearly everyone else is worse. FFS, the USMC could beat the asses of most anyone else without the Army to help.

Not to mention extreme over production of poor build quality vehicles. Granted, its forgivable regarding the T54/55 seeing that it was sheer panic, but it kept happening.

More like the Wessex of England or the New England of America.

Denying they are Russian is silly.

I hear people say "the Ukraine" all the time and I've never meet a Russian in my life. News broadcasters also called it "the Ukraine" when the donbass shit started and Russia took back Crimea (which the also called the Crimea I believe).

You take that back right now you dumb cunt. We have a national reputation to uphold and I'm not letting some angry slav faggot tarnish it.

But Ukrainian Bandits are just their population while ours are chugs, only difference is which alcohol they get drunk on and ours are browner. Plus we have no zone unfortunately. (Someone nuke Edmonton it's the perfect place for a zone and far enough away I won't die in the blast which might be a negative)

Attached: panzer-8-pzkpfw-viii-maus.jpg (800x473, 55.6K)

That's because it's the proper way to call it. But Kiev, sorry Kyiv (pronounced Kiev) newspeak doesn't want it to be so.

Can't wait for pic related to happen.

Attached: ukraine in the not so distant future.jpg (633x355, 46.58K)

By what metric? A hundred thousand Americans, tip of the spear type guys, couldn't kill 50 thousand Taliban over more than a decade. That means it takes more than two American elite soldiers to kill one stone age primitive.
There are in total about a million and a half armed government servants in America, soldiers and cops together, and most of them aren't elite soldiers backed by the best tech either. So if someone cough-MEXICO comes at you with 150k stone age primitives in a serious manner, what the fuck are you going to do?

This is the #1 reason countries don't contribute into NATO anymore, no one believes in it anymore.

Because that's the grammatical way to call an area of land, a name geographic in origin, or used to replace a name which was more political such as a borderlands which used to belong to someone else
For example the Netherlands mean the "low lands" and the proper way to say it is "The Netherlands".
The Gambia means the land which borders a river, the Tuscany which is the land between the Apennines and the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Seas, the Kosovo means "the land of the kos" which is a type of bird, the Punjab which is a region of the Indus river with its five tributaries, the Philipines were a set of islands named "Filipinas" by an explorer long before they were a country, even The British Isles.

Ukrainians are just dumb pigs that need to be liberated from about 90% of the land they currently occupy.

The Red part is the Ukraine in the 1600. The Brown was given to them by Russian tsars. The Green was given to them by Stalin. The Blue was given to them by Lenin. And the Purple (Crimea ) was given to them by Kruschev in 1954. Their entire country consists of people gifting them land, they never conquered shit or grew an iota of a civilization. The Ukrainians basically HATE Russians for being a living reminder of this unnatural growth, not for any other reason.

Attached: ukraine-L-0e0zuQ.jpeg (460x323, 25.17K)

Glasses houses lad.

*glass

Fucking autocorrect

At least go all out with the ebinness.

Attached: Magyarország_nagycímerének_terve_Altenburger_Gusztávtól.png (4170x2333, 12.9M)