Every single way you conceive of war is wrong. Mobility>Firepower and guns are only localized suppressive Fire.
The only use for firepower in this day and age is to pin the enemy while you close.
>Muh Marksmun
>Muh Riflemun
Jominites keep complaining about bullets being to " weak" when ammo is just meant to pin troops while you maneuver and close.
Clausewitz+Du Pique+Paddy Griffith
Fuck """Jominishits""Westmoreland
How's the weather in Nantes today?
nah.
bullets are only useful for keeping the enemy in one place while you wait for a plane/drone/artillery to fuck their shit up.
>what is CAS
Calm down, buddie.
Who are you even conversing with?
I see you subscribe to the
>H-he's fast!
theory of warfare.
I myself subscribe to the
>Th-that power... !
theory of warfare.
As a general rule, dead people and destroyed vehicles are bad a maneuvering. So making the enemy a pile of ash always a good thing to do.
>doesn't subscribe to the 'Get there the fastest with the mostest' theory of warfare.
I personally think biological weapons are superior.
Firepower is King, squirt.
Should've posted an actual bomber then.
you don't recognize the GLORY that was to be the XB70?
>Mobility>Firepower
If mobility was, as you say, superior to firepower, how come soldiers can't outrun bullets and shells?
I know all about the useless paperweight known as the Valkyrie.
Have you no heart, man ; ;
Isn't that what he's saying?
Will we ever have marches on the battlefield again?
youtube.com
Don't be a fucking retard
No, because what he's saying is you have to get close to the enemy to waste him.
Nigga my planefu is the YF-23, at least that thing was actually superior in some aspects to the F-22.
The Valkyrie was only good for NASA experiments and getting rear ended by Starfighters.
It was better than the plane it was meant to replace. And having a supersonic heavy bomber can come in handy one day.
Post YF23 pics, pls... for research.
hahahahah jesus christ
>fuck everything down there m8
Actually you need both.
Mobilty means jack shit if your bullets can't penetrate your opponent's armor.
And you still have to make the other guy dead. Bullets are pretty good in places you can't call in an airstrike/artillery barrage/Attack Chopper support/tanks/dronestrikes/shitposting army.
why didn't they adopt this?
en.wikipedia.org
"The YF-23 was stealthier and faster, but less agile than its competitor. After a four-year development and evaluation process, the YF-22 was announced the winner in 1991 "
a pity, it's beautiful. is it nuclear-capable?
It cannot carry the B61, which is the current tactical nuclear weapon of the US.
Neither can the F-22, although the F-35 is capable of carrying it.
well, it's supposed to be fighter anyway
>Jominites keep complaining about bullets being to " weak" when ammo is just meant to pin troops while you maneuver and close.
Who?
Also, bullets often are meant to pin the enemy so that artillery can take them out.
Even then, it depends on the war. A total war between two well organized nations is different from an ethnoc conflict is different from and American war where you attack a weak country to create demand for cruise missiles.