this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
139 points (97.3% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6772 readers
1057 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Gut feeling is modern ground force, as that's what takes and holds territory at the end of the day, and Ukraine shows that modern AA makes things quite dangerous for modern air units to operate.
Modern Airforce would wipe WW2 airforce like it was nothing. They wouldn't even see the F-35 or out maneuver their missiles. Remember they had no plane based radar, all visual, they wouldn't even know they were already dead.
Modern AA could hinder modern Airforce but the WW2 AF will eventually have to run Sorties into enemy territory or they are just patrolling above their own forces not doing a whole lot. There is a reason modern doctrine starts with establishing air superiority.
There is nothing modern in airforce in Ukraine in either side
Hey, Russia had an Su-57 and an S-70! ...I mean, they had to get the fighter to shoot the UAV down, but still, they were there!
Yeah, but it's not in use in Ukraine (like it would work or make any difference lol, pretty much like the Armata tank). Nothing either side is using was developed in 21st century. Late 20th at most.
F-117 (which is still 20th century but more advanced than cold war era stuff they are using now) and F-35 would shred any AA, in my armchair general opinion of course.
I would argue drones are quite a modern addition to air forces.
Drones are army, they're just a fancy grenade/pair of binoculars, when you think about it. Or maybe a missile.
The ones they have been using that fly for dozens or hundreds of kilometers aren't really just grenade or binocular levels of equipment.
Neither are ATACMs. They aren't air force though.
I mean by the fucked up definitions in the US boats, planes and ground troops exist in all branches of the military but if you go by actual technology anything flying for more than a ballistic ground-powered throw (like artillery would have at most) should absolutely be considered part of the air forces.
Yes BUT! The drones they are currently using aren't really an air force. If they'd be using Reapers and the like yeah, but BabaYaga is not really an air force. I guess we are a bit splitting the hair though here, we could nitpick forever!
Would probably still be enough to give some WW2 troops a lot of trouble.
There are hundreds of primitive suicide planes made of plywood and cardboard that fly every day and do damage on both sides. You can't get more ww2 than that and ecomonically impossible to use modern aa against them, one missile costs more than a hundred probably. There is nothing modern about this war.
Aren't those planes brought up to the air by actual planes? If modern planes have air dominance, then those plywood planes had better have a functioning plywood engine because there won't be anything else to get them skybound.