Ak47s For Everyone

[Perpetuo Carlson]

Heream ur. Ready to take up the challenges ak47s that life throws at us yellow rebels.

If that first post doesnt scare away the frothers then nothing will but its like a beacon in the darkness to us murderers

Under his sausage oh most sage and illustrious of leaders and Bananian comrades,

Thank you for another thread to save our sanity our all knowing and witty princess.

I was enjoying the man candy on the last thread. Hopefully it's cheered our lovely wilting Lilac up. It's certainly brightened up this rather damp day for me or should that be , made this day a little damper ...

Princess...a book with the title I'm not fat, just hard to kidnap has best seller written all over it. And could of course be played by your favourite irreverent Australian actress.

Present and correct after a small killing spree to buy coffee and jelly babies. Essentials and all.

Can I be under Zac Efron's sausage? Maybe we could cast him in the Bananian Princess and her murderous minions of doom movie? He can play the part of my imaginary DP in which case the part of me will be played by me

How's it going @LilacTree1? Hopefully our objectifying of men has cheered you up a bit? I know it's trivial but I hope it made you smile

Yes it was bad time to run out of thread with all those lovely photos to look at!

I think Norman and Jeff could be cast as my 2 husbands in my 'open relationship of 3' (Sigourney sling yer hook)

Ooh Willow that could be a plot twist, we all have multiple partners but everyone's ok with it. In that case I'm having Zac Efron and Jared Leto.

Maybe it's a commune overseen by our beloved Princess and guarded by vikings. And we all take AKs with us when we go shopping because we can't get deliveries online.

Ooh, I've clearly been missing out on something here. I've got my dressing gown on, a towel and a bag of nuts for some protein, so I'm ready for some apocalypse action.

Blessed be the fruit loops.

I dont know why they decided to change it to 16v16, but it's a horrible change. It's horrible for BVR because you will see a cluster of targets on radar and very hard to select desirable ones. It's horrible for dogfighters because there is always some random guy on your 6 no matter what your skill level is. It's even worse for grinders like F4S cuz the number of bases remains the same and now you need to compete with more people for them. It's basically a net lose for almost everyone.

Last but not least - after 1953 there were no fights of any armed US forces with masses of enemy planes on the same technology level. U had some fights above Vietnam were US planes were locally outnumbered a few times whilst being handicapped by RoE, but i never read or heard about fights on equal terms regarding numbers and technology.

Basically all fights of US aircraft after 1953 were against some poor guys with rice hats and Ak47s or against some other guys with Ak47s living near to strategic points (ex.Panama) or near or above strategic resources (oil/opium) without a realistic chance for a fair fight as SAMs (if they had some) or the few enemy fighters were wiped out prior any large scale air operations.

So in other words every reference of air to air combat in this scale wt currently offers including their attempt to create fights of planes with similar performance/technology with the same numbers involved, has no actual real life references.

I am not sure if this point is valid, i mean the technology to track multiple opponents at the same time, assess their threat level and to launch missiles against multiple targets in a very short time is around 50 years old. So imho you can argue that it is unrealistic by external factors (doctrine, realistic fuel loads/need for fuel at inconvenient times, AWACS involvement, etc.) but from a technical standpoint you can argue otherwise.

I recommend to go to yt and watch some vids "Red Star Rising" - created to show some fights out of the book by Tom Clancy. Despite being fictional imho among the best descriptions of potential late Cold War conflicts you will find online - including dozens of planes fighting each other.

I mean you tell somebody else basically he has no clue and you tried to educate him. This requires to be precise and if somebody clearly refers to future events by using "you will never see" it is a methodical mistake to refer to the past, not more, not less.

Stated in my previous post, bringing this is useless as US forces had clear more advanced technology. Imho a further example of a non applicable example of your claim as the total number of planes actually fighting was lower than 16 vs 16, at least from the loss perspective without counting the baiting planes.

I mentioned this conflict in my post. And i stated that sources in this more or less ongoing conflict are imho not reliable. Even if they would be correct, i can not remember a single combat report comparable to a 16 vs 16 in wt.

Irrelevant for your claim as the majority of Arab Air Forces were destroyed on the ground by a large scale surprise attack. Btw one of the main reasons for the short duration, and the US technology provided to Israel was from an overall perspective seen as superior. At least by the majority of historians and reflecting the training standards/levels and the overall quality of mainly outdated (or delivered with lower technical capabilities) Sowjet hardware.

This point is imho valid to a certain degree as both countries had for several years similar western technology, disrupted for Iranian F--4s and F-14s after the revolution in Iran 1979. So even if you would claim "ehy, they had MiG 25s and the others had F-14s" it does't matter. Imho not relevant for "future views" as mentioned by the OP and i never read about 16 vs 16 fights there.

No offense man, i wrote that i appreciate your overall input in general. So i have no clue why put such statements to your comment or in your other comment i was referring to - imho assuming you would have superior knowledge and it would be an honor for somebody else to receive unwanted feedback and a lesson for free.

If i were you, i would reply that i have forgotten more about military aviation history than somebody else will ever learn. But as i am different than you, i just recommend that you just save such sentences for your peers and keep them out of a public forum. Thx in advance!

Wrong, At least for F4S Ive seen many times their number exceeding 10, Tornado maybe rare but that doesnt change the arguement, because these toptier 'bombers' are actually classified as fighters which dont have any number limit.

I mean these level of concentrations in jet dogfighting almost never happened. Jet dogfightings were rare after 1970s, and US doctrine basically avoids mass dogfighting with all cost because it almost certainly means a very bad change ratio, which is also a very irritating factor in-game, as I mentioned before, it almost disregards your skill level.

I see your points, but I need to mention that jets dogfightings were rare even after 1950s, most fights were hit and run before 1980s, after that, AWACS and Radar missiles determine the fight. Many factors contribute to this like jet fuel consumption, duration time (which is significant shorter than props).

The US only gained its decisive tech superiority after 1970s with IC put into service en mass. Before that Soviets were not left behind too much. Wars should never be simplified as between US jets and some AK equipped guys. Even if you are fighting a much smaller weaker enemy, strategies, mission planning and tactics are key to the outcome. Being bad at these can cause catastrophic loss and defeat, like we saw US jets in Vietnam and today's Russian Army in Ukraine, small nations have smaller bets in the same war.

Wars should never be simplified as between US jets and some AK equipped guys. Even if you are fighting a much smaller weaker enemy, strategies, mission planning and tactics are key to the outcome. Being bad at these can cause catastrophic loss and defeat, like we saw US jets in Vietnam and today's Russian Army in Ukraine, small nations have smaller bets in the same war.

Imho you should consider the outcome of aerial warfare over Vietnam as a clear victory regarding fighter vs fighter engagements, despite the mentioned drawbacks. The actual high plane losses were inflicted by AAA/SAMs (to be seen in context of a proxy war) and are just showing that my AK47 example is more or less accurate - without the political restrictions (no clear goal in this engagement, missing determination to win) hundreds of US pilots could have survived by killing the supplies arriving in North Vietnam. Basically political reasons were the reasons for sustained losses and the subsequent defeat and not the inability of US forces to use their superior firepower.

Regarding your example of the Ukraine conflict: I am not sure if anybody has a clear understanding of each sides goals in this conflict, the underlying reasons for it in the first place. Imho the sentence "the first victim in any war is the truth" fits perfectly. Maybe in 10 to 30 years we will be able to come to own conclusions by looking on actual losses of the involved parties - if some historians get access to military archives. Until then all news on both sides are more or less pure propaganda driven by different agendas.

3a8082e126