Military Review

US media explained why no one wants to fight with the US

109
The National Interest in its article lists the top five types of American weaponswhich explains why other countries do not want to mess with the United States.




The United States has "firepower of an amazing scale that can be used both in small operations against insurgents and in full-scale armored battles," the article leads. InoTV.

The author offers the five best types of American weapons. In his opinion, "it is the presence of this technique in the United States Army that explains why no country in the world wants to fight with it."

Helicopter AH-64 Apache.

“There is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the best weapon of the advanced ground forces of the US Army is an aircraft. However, recent conflicts in which the Americans were and are likely to participate have shown: support aviation is a decisive factor, ”the material says.

Armed with 30-millimeter guns, Hellfire missiles and high-precision Apache sensors allow the army to strike at opponents before they are within range of ground forces.

Tank M-1 Abrams.

"The answer to the question is whether the M-1 Abrams is the best a tank in the world depends on who you are talking to and, more importantly, which country your interlocutor is from. But there is no doubt that this is one of the best fighting vehicles, ”the author claims.

The 60-tonne Abrams "boasts an 120-mm cannon, uranium armor, which is up to three feet thick, and at a speed greater than 40 miles per hour." In 1991 in Iraq, he “smashed” Soviet-made equipment and, very likely, he could cope with the Chinese main battle tank “Type 99”.

SAU M109A6 Paladin.

"In the last" small wars "in which America participated, its powerful self-propelled howitzers" kept in the shadows. " But this does not negate the fact that they are a highly efficient weapon, ”writes the publication.

Paladin - the latest version of the "venerable" self-propelled artillery M-109. It is capable of launching 155-mm projectiles, including the Excalibur satellite-guided projectiles, to 20 miles.

Anti-tank missile system TOW.

“Apparently, Russia (or the Soviet Union) is the king of anti-tank missiles. Perhaps this is due to the threat that armored vehicles developed in the West can pose to its armed forces, ”the author argues.

Meanwhile, the United States in this game is not new. “The American anti-tank complex TOW is not losing ground even today, after almost 45 years of service. With it, tanks were destroyed - mainly of Soviet manufacture - in Vietnam and the Middle East, ”the article says.

Browning M2.

The author admits that “the inclusion of this 80-year-old heavy machine gun in the list may seem strange, but the fact that almost a century after its appearance and participation in an infinite number of wars, M2 is still in order, proves its uniqueness”.

Developed in those years, "when Franklin Roosevelt only became president of the United States, and Hitler came to power in Germany, M2 was used in all parts of the world as an anti-aircraft, anti-vehicle and anti-personnel machine gun, comparable to a small gun." The updated version of the M2A1 has a quick-change barrel and a night flame arrester.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NKT
    NKT 25 October 2017 12: 34 New
    +3
    There is power - no mind.
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 25 October 2017 12: 38 New
      10
      Quote: NKT
      why nobody wants to fight with the USA

      why nobody wants to fight with the USA crying They don’t play with me ... crying crying crying
      1. LSA57
        LSA57 25 October 2017 12: 50 New
        14
        Quote: NIKNN
        why nobody wants to fight with the USA

        don’t touch the poop, she won’t stink
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 26 October 2017 05: 35 New
          12
          US media explained why no one wants to fight with the US
          And they explained why the United States wants to fight with everyone?
      2. tol100v
        tol100v 25 October 2017 12: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: NIKNN
        Quote: NKT
        why nobody wants to fight with the USA
        why no one wants to fight the US They don’t play with me ...

        Do not touch ... oh, he won’t stink! Here they are "exceptional", just like the elusive Joe!
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 25 October 2017 12: 54 New
          +2
          Amazing coincidence of opinions ... laughing
      3. askme
        askme 25 October 2017 13: 18 New
        +6
        Adult women do not fight with women. Women are fighting tantrums or with children (hybrid, as they say now). With adults and men, they are afraid. Like the USA. When the US war regrow grows, the roof finally eats out and they climb into an open battle - they will be finished. Right away.
        1. Groin Malafyin
          Groin Malafyin 26 October 2017 11: 02 New
          +1
          Then it’s worth to call the “women” the soldiers of that country where almost all weapons were taken away from the people, like slaves (soon they will also force the pneumatics to register). Yes, in the states, nine-year-old suckers can be able to shoot from a pile of guns better and more than military personnel of other countries. It’s just the culture of handling the weapon and the skills of shooting from it at the sky-high level, and for the most part even the PM did not hold in their hands the dazzling radiance.
          1. askme
            askme 26 October 2017 11: 10 New
            +6
            Well, in Africa, too, every frostbitten “not a slave” knows how to shoot from Kalash. And what does this prove? That they are as "progressive" as the Yankees? Or the fact that they are there like a beast in a zoo?) And in Japan or in Germany it is forbidden to own a firearm, as in the vast majority of other developed countries - are they all “slaves” there too?))) These are rhetorical questions. That is, those for which the answers are self-evident ...

            I wonder how trolls respond to deliberately emotional posts. You can safely catch local professional trolls from NATO kivervoysk. We will continue to catch enemies)))

            On this site they made a very tight nest, taking advantage of the special psychological state of some elderly people who were experiencing psychological breakdown after 1991 and were unable to overcome it. And parasites use the hatred of such people, incite their hatred against the authorities of the Russian Federation, against the public structure in the Russian Federation.

            I'm glad my analogy hit the mark. Because this is absolutely the point of analogy!
            1. Groin Malafyin
              Groin Malafyin 26 October 2017 11: 49 New
              +1
              You are looking for “enemies” and “cyber military” perfectly, you can immediately see the Savets training wink The main thing in your business is not to admit that one of your compatriots may simply think differently and have their own opinions on various issues.

              Well, you truly correctly noticed that in Japan, Germany, I’ll add from myself - Britain, and I have strained a lot more with civilian weapons. But it wasn’t always like this, but the current state of affairs is a consequence of the fact that these countries are direct colonies or faithful satellites of the same States or simply countries without any ambitions in the international arena that are not ready and are not going to fight. And in our country, it seems like they are waving their fists hard, but their hands are short: for the most part, even the military do not handle small arms, and this will be even worse for potential reservists. A mediocre state soldier, who had plenty of shots at his place in Texas with rifles and pistols, would calmly put a dozen plain-looking scattered fighters, who were held by AK for the first time in their lives.
              1. askme
                askme 26 October 2017 12: 02 New
                +5
                But who doubts that some Yankee maniac would put a bunch of defenseless Papuans in a dash? There is no doubt about it. But the fact that the Yankees are cowardly and very sensitive to losses, before diarrhea, is a fact at present. That's why they are raking in the Middle East from Russia ... Previously, they lied about the overthrow of Assad, now they only whimper helplessly under the bench. Clearly outlined? And true ... Between a man, a warrior and a cowardly maniac sensitive to his own pain with a strong womanish factor - there is a big difference. What is the analogy about ...
              2. Serzh
                Serzh 26 October 2017 23: 02 New
                +1
                You are wrong ....
                I will not paint what and how. Just watch the story.
                Russians are fighters from birth. In the states - Hollywood fighters.
          2. DimerVladimer
            DimerVladimer 31 October 2017 11: 39 New
            0
            Цитата: Пахом Малафьин
            Then it’s worth to call the “women” the soldiers of that country where almost all weapons were taken away from the people, like slaves (soon they will also force the pneumatics to register). Yes, in the states, nine-year-old suckers can be able to shoot from a pile of guns better and more than military personnel of other countries. It’s just the culture of handling the weapon and the skills of shooting from it at the sky-high level, and for the most part even the PM did not hold in their hands the dazzling radiance.


            At a school of the USSR, 300 rounds of ammunition per night shot from a small-bore rifle in a school shooting gallery.
            Before reaching the age of 14, he earned the third sports shooting rank.
            Of course, it’s getting worse now.
            But there are no reasons to fight yet.
    2. dorz
      dorz 25 October 2017 12: 39 New
      +3
      why nobody wants to fight with the USA

      Forgot to mention a combat laser and an electro-magnetic gun. laughing
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 25 October 2017 12: 44 New
        14
        Quote: dorz
        why nobody wants to fight with the USA

        Forgot to mention a combat laser and an electro-magnetic gun. laughing


        Gentlemen ... I'm begging you ... I don’t pay attention to this for a second .. I don’t see either F22 or F35 in the top five .. laughing laughing laughing
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 25 October 2017 15: 25 New
          +5
          Quote: vorobey
          Gentlemen ... I'm begging you ... I don’t pay attention to this for a second .. I don’t see either F22 or F35 in the top five ..

          Moreover, I don’t see either Tomahawks or ICBMs or even aircraft carriers. laughing
    3. Finches
      Finches 25 October 2017 12: 47 New
      +7
      I’m the main one in the sandbox, because I write to the wall above .... laughing
    4. Stas Snezhin
      Stas Snezhin 25 October 2017 13: 04 New
      +6
      Gold words..
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 25 October 2017 13: 38 New
        +7
        "exceptional" ... what to take from them ... one arrogance ... and someday, we will knock her down.
    5. Div Divich
      Div Divich 25 October 2017 16: 27 New
      +4
      The United States has both power and intelligence.

      There is no need to engage in cap-making, saying that we are left-handed, and in general we will throw our hats. History shows how such hatreds end - a complete defeat, and who was engaged in hatreds either dies or his worldview changes.
      1. Airman
        Airman 26 October 2017 10: 16 New
        +3
        ... And power is and will is, but there is no will! :) ... Penguins have good technique, no doubt. But all military conflicts, even, excuse me, the game "World of Tanks", show that it’s not the technology that is fighting, but the people ... The spirit is needed! it’s weak with them! ... And the fact that you can’t deal with cap-making is true.
        1. kasatky
          kasatky 27 October 2017 13: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: Povshnik
          game "World of Tanks", show that it’s not the technology that fights, but the people

          Survived. The Pepsi generation knows the world. Virtual.
          Would refer to historical events, the exploits of the Soviet people, it would be much better.
    6. Slovak
      Slovak 25 October 2017 19: 36 New
      +4
      Logically questions arise:
      1. The USA started many wars. Name at least one in which they won.
      2. Why can't this “astounding” power come to grips with terrorists in Afghanistan and the Middle East?
      3. Why are reasonable thoughts able to give birth only to former US military commanders?
      1. region58
        region58 25 October 2017 22: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: Slovak
        Why can't this “astounding" power come to grips with terrorists in Afghanistan and the Middle East?

        Not always the goal of hostilities is victory. Well, they defeated everyone ... but how to justify their presence practically around the world? But to create chaos ... all the money runs to where everything is calm ... Again, the military industrial complex works, military ranks get ... beauty ...
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 26 October 2017 01: 02 New
        +3
        Quote: Slovak
        Name at least one in which they won.

        As Clausewitz said, “The purpose of the war is the post-war world under conditions most comfortable for the winner.” From this point of view, the main winner in WWII and WWII is precisely the tan (especially in WWII, when we paid for their victory with their blood).
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. SpaceCom
      SpaceCom 25 October 2017 12: 54 New
      +1
      Emotionally, but true! In any conflict, striped are always right ... It's not interesting! tongue
      1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Partyzan
    Partyzan 25 October 2017 12: 38 New
    +9
    The United States possesses "firepower of an astonishing scale that can be used both in small operations against rebels and in full-scale armored battles,"
    yeah, modesty doesn't smell here
    1. Sergey53
      Sergey53 25 October 2017 12: 41 New
      +2
      The question is not in the American style, but in principle: do not touch shit more than stinks.
  4. B.T.V.
    B.T.V. 25 October 2017 12: 39 New
    +2
    "You won’t praise yourself ..."
  5. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 25 October 2017 12: 44 New
    +7
    For every type of American weapon ... we can submit our list. It’s ridiculous for the Abrams who smashed Soviet-made tanks in the 91st ... your Abrams are still smashed in the Middle East (by the way, with the help of the same old Soviet-made tanks and with anti-tank systems). Your "Apache" has long been no longer the best, compare with the Mi-28 NM, il Ka-52. Your palladin is not at all a serious rival to our SPGs .... and so on.
    1. The_lancet
      The_lancet 25 October 2017 12: 47 New
      +1
      For the Abrams who smashed Soviet-made tanks in the 91st, it’s generally funny ...
      Your "Apache" has long been no longer the best, compare with the Mi-28 NM

      Here the comparison is not in your favor. A lot of articles even on this resource prove reasonably.
      Your palladin is not at all a serious rival to our SPGs .... and so on.

      These are worth a lot.
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 25 October 2017 12: 55 New
        +8
        Quote: The_Lancet
        For the Abrams who smashed Soviet-made tanks in the 91st, it’s generally funny ...
        Your "Apache" has long been no longer the best, compare with the Mi-28 NM

        Here the comparison is not in your favor. A lot of articles even on this resource prove reasonably.
        Your palladin is not at all a serious rival to our SPGs .... and so on.

        These are worth a lot.


        Well, yes, well, yes ... but we have an MPL ... which has been produced practically unchanged since 1915 .. laughing scary thing ...
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 25 October 2017 17: 51 New
          +1
          ... And also strategic browning M-2. By the way, ardent critics of the age of "Kalash" are silent about the use of M-2. Waiting, sir ...
      2. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 25 October 2017 13: 03 New
        17
        The_lancet
        Many articles even on this resource argue reasonably.
        What kind of articles are these ?! Who is author?! Dave Majumdar ?! Well then, yes, a "weighty argument" ... laughing A comparison is just in favor of our weapons, even I see it. Your "vaunted" weapon is good only in your ad. Your super-duper tanks burn beautifully from our old grenade launchers, destroyers lose their orientation do not understand why, super-duper "invisible" planes bring down our old air defense systems, etc., etc. The only thing you have no equal is in your advertising and arrogance ... laughing laughing laughing
        1. The_lancet
          The_lancet 25 October 2017 13: 40 New
          +2
          Dear Diana.Let's talk more calmly. You have too emotional messages)
          What kind of articles are these ?! Who is author?! Dave Majumdar ?!

          No, I’m talking about topwar.ru
          Your "vaunted" weapon is good only in your ad.

          Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of. Burnt tanks and Saddam's armored vehicles showed it.
          Despite the fact that the strength of their army was underestimated
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 25 October 2017 14: 24 New
            19
            The_Lancet Today, 13:40 PM ↑
            Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of. Burnt tanks and Saddam's armored vehicles showed it.
            You're lying, you're lying! Iraq only showed the power of your dirty money. Bought the highest generals and all! There was no war, so, fights of local importance, the Iraqi army showed virtually no resistance. What your pathetic army is like was seen in Cuba, Korea and Vietnam, when you were beaten in the tail and in the mane like puppies. Your army has never been able to fight with an equal enemy. Just fight with the Papuans.
            Nothing, the time will come when you will answer for all the evil that you have done all over the world, wash yourself with your blood to the very top!
            1. vorobey
              vorobey 25 October 2017 14: 43 New
              12
              Quote: Diana Ilyina

              Diana Ilyina


              Oh Diana ... they still don’t know that our most formidable weapon is our women ... love ISIS barmalei children compared to you. That's who it is necessary to be afraid of, and the Americans and the British and others who are not to visit .. love
              1. Diana Ilyina
                Diana Ilyina 25 October 2017 14: 54 New
                +9
                ISIS barmalei children compared to you

                Alexander, love how much do I suppose is a compliment addressed to me ?! However gallant you are today ... repeat
                1. vorobey
                  vorobey 25 October 2017 14: 55 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Diana Ilyina
                  ISIS barmalei children compared to you

                  Alexander, love how much do I suppose is a compliment addressed to me ?! However gallant you are today ... repeat


                  Yes, I’m .. I’m not ... It's not a wave of a shovel .. repeat love
            2. Weyland
              Weyland 26 October 2017 01: 07 New
              +2
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              the Iraqi army showed virtually no resistance.

              In fact, it was Saddam’s cunning plan - Iraqi would sooner or later be kicked in a field battle, and so - they could save the army and drag the pin-dos into a long exhausting war with the partisans. True, everything did not go according to plan due to the fact that Saddam himself was surrendered - but ISIS is so difficult to cope with precisely because of this. that their main fighting force is Saddam's former personnel officers
            3. raw174
              raw174 26 October 2017 06: 43 New
              +2
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              Iraq only showed the power of your dirty money. Bought the highest generals and all!

              Iraq is quite an indicator ... An indicator of the superiority of not only weapons, but also tactics and strategies. Maybe they bought someone (also an element of the strategy), this does not negate the fact that the US Army completely defeated one of the strongest armies of the continent without any difficulties.
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              Your super-duper tanks burn beautifully from our old grenade launchers

              Probably any tank can be burned with an old grenade launcher with a modern charge, even the T-90 ...
              Quote: Diana Ilyina
              super-duper "invisible" planes knock down our old air defense systems

              Meanwhile, the United States has a fairly small combat loss of aircraft, given how long their aircraft work ... I already wrote here that it’s not very right to be proud of one downed F-117 until the end of time ...
              Of course, I’m sure that today we are able to restrain the United States, but here it’s like in the movies (I don’t remember the name): "I am not stronger than Moti, Motya not stronger than me, we like balance ..."
          2. DMB_95
            DMB_95 25 October 2017 16: 08 New
            +8
            Quote: The_Lancet

            Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of. Burnt tanks and Saddam's armored vehicles showed it.

            You still brag about the "brilliant" victories over the Indians .. You have never had a real War, by and large. Your troops have always acted across the ocean, knowing that nothing threatens their country, and no one conducts carpet bombing of American cities. Nobody erased your New York, as you erased Dresden, where there were almost no German troops. You have something to be ashamed of and something to fear, but there is definitely nothing to be proud of your army. Not Iraq’s "victory", in fact ..
            1. The_lancet
              The_lancet 25 October 2017 18: 24 New
              0
              You have never had a real war, by and large. Your troops have always acted across the ocean

              Why do we need it? And with whom to fight? With Mexico or Canada? For what to fight? Probably for the metric system? laughing Write nonsense
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 25 October 2017 19: 43 New
                14
                Quote: The_Lancet
                Why do we need it? And with whom to fight? With Mexico or Canada? For what to fight? Probably for the metric system? Write nonsense

                And Mexico has already been squeezed out what they wanted. Canada is a hand-castrated animal. And bitumen sands in Alberta are of no interest.
                What did they fight in Korea for? For bamboo? In vietnam? For rice? Tried to climb to Cuba? For rum and cigars? In Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria? For world peace?
              2. DMB_95
                DMB_95 26 October 2017 11: 37 New
                +6
                Quote: The_Lancet
                You have never had a real war, by and large. Your troops have always acted across the ocean

                Why do we need it? And with whom to fight? With Mexico or Canada? For what to fight? Probably for the metric system? laughing Write nonsense

                That's right, the States do not need war on their continent. But why are you starting wars on foreign lands far from you? Let me guess ... Probably, for the triumph of freedom and democracy around the world. AND ! For the sake of these .. how are they .. "Universal values"! Do you yourself believe that people who lived in sovereign states dreamed of the arrival of your "democracy" through "humanitarian bombing" ?? Only "do not write nonsense."
          3. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 25 October 2017 20: 52 New
            +1
            Iraq showed that weapons of production from the fifties to the seventies are far from weapons of the nineties and two thousandths! American technology ceases to be "exceptional" turning into a series of ordinary or slightly outdated when meeting with an equal or newer technique of the enemy. The exception is only with regard to the M2 machine gun, the old man is still holding on, but he only has a little left, the mass production of the latest large-caliber machine guns will send him on a well-deserved rest to military historical museums. You have been trying to replace the old man in your homeland for a long time, there are even decent samples, it is not clear just for what reasons the replacement did not occur.
          4. region58
            region58 25 October 2017 22: 33 New
            +3
            Quote: The_Lancet
            Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of. Burnt tanks and Saddam's armored vehicles showed it.

            The concept of using this or that type of weapon is everything. I hope you know the saying about an alternatively gifted individual and a glass product of an erotic form.
          5. Airman
            Airman 26 October 2017 10: 25 New
            +2
            Yes, yes! We saw one Mi-24, gouging a column of armored vehicles, and cleaned away safe and sound! This is despite the fact that there were 3 ZSU in the column !!!
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 October 2017 00: 53 New
      0
      Apache is better in armament - the new multi-functional ATGMs of generation 3+, here they go into the series.
    3. raw174
      raw174 26 October 2017 07: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey-74
      Your "Apache" has long been no longer the best, compare with the Mi-28 NM, il Ka-52.

      The footage of our VKS work shows that our helicopters effectively operate with NURSs, but as soon as accuracy is needed, they are forced to hang and accompany the target, which is not very good, not modern ...
  6. KCA
    KCA 25 October 2017 12: 45 New
    +6
    Paladin, yes, weigh it, only a Paladin’s battery can easily match the power of one Msta-S self-propelled gun, but only until it’s time to clean the barrel with a brush
  7. HAM
    HAM 25 October 2017 12: 46 New
    +3
    The cockerel praises the cuckoo .... And where is F22 (35) ", Zumvolt" and other "wunderwaffes" - from them the enemies immediately have a tantrum ??
  8. Strashila
    Strashila 25 October 2017 12: 49 New
    +2
    You will not praise yourself, nor will anyone praise yourself.
  9. spirit
    spirit 25 October 2017 12: 51 New
    +1
    Could just write a defense budget of 600 yards and that’s all) they would ascribe another 911 laughing
  10. -ш-
    -ш- 25 October 2017 12: 53 New
    +2
    DPRK does not count
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 October 2017 00: 55 New
      0
      The fact that the United States and the allies do not expose the DPRK, you must already put a candle - at any time they can attack.
      1. Airman
        Airman 26 October 2017 10: 32 New
        +5
        Yes they are! Isn’t it visible? Mr Y’s iron pricks, and they understood it! And they also understood that he was yelling, if he said!
  11. Dimy4
    Dimy4 25 October 2017 12: 55 New
    +3
    The United States themselves choose with whom to fight. And the main criterion for choosing that the technical equipment of the enemy was approximately like the beginning of the 20th century. The same applies to trained military personnel. And if in our opinion, then for every tricky nut there is (you yourself know what).
  12. Egorovich
    Egorovich 25 October 2017 13: 00 New
    11
    Therefore, with their high-precision weapons, the mattresses gouged Mosul and Raqqa. A reason for pride in the face.
  13. Masya masya
    Masya masya 25 October 2017 13: 02 New
    +7
    States let Eun say this, that’s where his hands itch ...
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 25 October 2017 13: 16 New
      +6
      Quote: Masya Masya
      States let Eun say this, that’s where his hands itch ...

  14. Kent0001
    Kent0001 25 October 2017 13: 21 New
    0
    I remembered a joke about the elusive Joe. ..something like this. And after Vietnam, the Amers did not have serious losses in any long period of time, and when they appear the Yankees can generally become depressed. And so, then yes, you can take it easy.
  15. Lavrenti Pavlovich
    Lavrenti Pavlovich 25 October 2017 13: 35 New
    +3
    The author of the article is either drunk, or under illegal drugs. The only deterrent is nuclear weapons and the kindness of our leadership, not counting the traitor labeled and the alcoholic.
  16. San Sanych
    San Sanych 25 October 2017 13: 36 New
    +6
    All that is listed in the article is very doubtful. The main weapon of the United States is the dollar, and the false media, but even they are not absolutely powerful weapons.
    1. raw174
      raw174 26 October 2017 07: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: San Sanych
      The main weapon of the USA is the dollar

      Rather, even the entire economy, all countries, to one degree or another, depend on the United States, however sad it may be, they are the center and are capable of dictating conditions today. The good news is that recently Russia began a more aggressive policy, teeth began to erupt ...
      Quote: San Sanych
      and false media

      The media they are not lying, they are all propaganda, 100%. Everyone fenders off their point of view and defends it from a favorable angle. And they and we ...
      1. San Sanych
        San Sanych 26 October 2017 10: 43 New
        0
        The US economy is certainly not weak, but compared to the 60s of the last century it is a paper tiger, now China is on the crest of a wave in the real sector
        1. raw174
          raw174 26 October 2017 10: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: San Sanych
          it's a paper tiger

          Nevertheless, it dictates the rules and so far is not going to take positions ...
          1. San Sanych
            San Sanych 26 October 2017 11: 06 New
            +2
            whether they want to or not, but they will nevertheless have to move in ... because their Wishlist has already begun to bother many
    2. Airman
      Airman 26 October 2017 10: 33 New
      0
      + 100500!!!
  17. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 October 2017 13: 55 New
    +1
    How nobody wants? With whom then are they fighting in Afghanistan since 2001? Are they fighting the Islamic state or not? Who attacked their soldiers in Africa?
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 25 October 2017 14: 54 New
      +5
      Quote: Kostadinov
      How nobody wants? With whom then are they fighting in Afghanistan since 2001? Are they fighting the Islamic state or not? Who attacked their soldiers in Africa?


      That's just the point of my brother .. feel the whole strength and power of the Russian language .. they are fighting with the Islamic state and not against it ...

      Respect for the Bulgarian soldiers ... https://topwar.ru/121594-svoenravnye-bolgary.html
  18. San Sanych
    San Sanych 25 October 2017 14: 02 New
    0
    If the author mentioned the Ohio SLBM, one could agree. And that weapon, which is written in the article, can impress only those who do not have any weapons at all, or the faint of heart. It is strange that the author did not mention the F-35 and Zumvolt laughing
    1. nafanal
      nafanal 25 October 2017 14: 43 New
      +2
      Well, about Ohio, let me disagree with you. If you are not too lazy, follow the link https://www.youtube.com/watch? V = A73dlbJhp
      9M. Americans still haven’t repeated it. Even after a single start-up, any Ohio will be repaired for a long time
  19. sgr291158
    sgr291158 25 October 2017 14: 17 New
    0
    They scare themselves, but they think everyone is scared.
  20. vorobey
    vorobey 25 October 2017 14: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: The_Lancet
    Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of


    Iraq showed what our weapons are capable of ... and Syria confirms repeat
  21. Krasnyiy komissar
    Krasnyiy komissar 25 October 2017 15: 10 New
    +2
    My TOP 5 serial Russian battlefield weapons:
    1. Su-35S
    2. Ka-xnumx
    3. T-90A
    4. OTRK "Iskander-M"
    5S2M19 Msta-S
    The list does not include Tu-160, Borea, Voivode, etc., because they relate to strategic nuclear forces.
    Offer your options!
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 25 October 2017 21: 06 New
      0
      6. Pinocchio (after the modernization of the Sun).
      7. Terminator.
      8. Tornado S.
      9. Accuracy.
      10. The warrior.
      hi
      1. Krasnyiy komissar
        Krasnyiy komissar 25 October 2017 23: 30 New
        0
        My top:
        6. MLRS "Smerch"
        7. SAM "Tor-M2U"
        8. BMP-3M
        9. ATGM "Cornet"
        10. AK-74M
  22. complete zero
    complete zero 25 October 2017 15: 56 New
    0
    some kind of dregs (this Western article) ... the U.S. Army is a strong army .. But not the strongest ... the Navy is a completely different matter
  23. complete zero
    complete zero 25 October 2017 16: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Krasnyiy komissar
    My TOP 5 serial Russian battlefield weapons:
    1. Su-35S
    2. Ka-xnumx
    3. T-90A
    4. OTRK "Iskander-M"
    5S2M19 Msta-S
    The list does not include Tu-160, Borea, Voivode, etc., because they relate to strategic nuclear forces.
    Offer your options!

    I won’t offer any options, but you have some doubts ... Su 35 and Ka-52 .. did NOT participate in real battles, unlike Apache or MI-24 ... so talking about them is premature ... options (ours) - "Ak" RPG-7 (you can add our other ATGMs) and tanks (maybe not the best but not the worst and most importantly massive)
    1. Krasnyiy komissar
      Krasnyiy komissar 25 October 2017 23: 36 New
      0
      Mi-24 - far from the most successful example of a combat helicopter, an attempt to cross the drummer and transporter. The Ka-52 is a purely percussion turret designed to destroy enemy armored vehicles and infantry. He showed himself well in Syria, fighting jihad mobiles and the fortifications of militants. There are questions to his missile weapons, but the helicopter fleet is at altitude.
  24. Prisoner
    Prisoner 25 October 2017 16: 04 New
    0
    Why did they suddenly get complacency? Especially in this way. what With a kind of exaggeration. Looks like ... that bench press. It is strange that about Betman and Flash were not squeezed for the company.
  25. complete zero
    complete zero 25 October 2017 16: 15 New
    +2
    Quote: Kent0001
    I remembered a joke about the elusive Joe. ..something like this. And after Vietnam, the Amers did not have serious losses in any long period of time, and when they appear the Yankees can generally become depressed. And so, then yes, you can take it easy.

    Well, that there is NO serious loss ... this to some extent speaks to them in plus (especially since the technology allows them to fight in today's conflicts) ... I do not know what their army (land) is capable of in a protracted war ... BUT the fleet is very “not bad” and the Air Force has both equipment and vast experience (especially Navy pilots)
  26. Малый
    Малый 25 October 2017 16: 40 New
    +5
    Cut colored paper ..... that’s the whole secret .... All the gold of the world ... they buy resources for paper ..... unsecured paper .... Nobody can do this .... Yes, in two wars the mattresses of the handle warmed ... profiting ...
  27. Rock616
    Rock616 25 October 2017 17: 23 New
    0
    Mattresses completely, with their exceptionality swelled .... lol
  28. complete zero
    complete zero 25 October 2017 21: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Small
    Cut colored paper ..... that’s the whole secret .... All the gold of the world ... they buy resources for paper ..... unsecured paper .... Nobody can do this .... Yes, in two wars the mattresses of the handle warmed ... profiting ...

    come on, you’ve "made money" (although of course you’ve made money) -but Lendlis was vital .. yes, and the Reich bombing did its job properly ... if by 1944 the Germans had relocated their best aviation group from the Eastern Front (JG 52 ) ... how many lives did our pilots save?
    1. raw174
      raw174 26 October 2017 07: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: complete zero
      come on, you’ve "made money" (although of course you’ve made money) -but Lendlis was vital .. yes, and the Reich bombing did its job properly ... if by 1944 the Germans had relocated their best aviation group from the Eastern Front (JG 52 ) ... how many lives did our pilots save?

      In the relevant topic, I argued with the members of the forum on this topic, each remained his own, but I also managed to learn a lot of interesting things. I believe that YES, profit! The war pulled the US economy to new heights and all help paid off many times! As a result, the world is organized as the United States needs it! And if Germany squeezed the USSR a little more, then the United States would act on their side.
      1. Airman
        Airman 26 October 2017 11: 41 New
        0
        So for this, World War II was conceived: to pull the United States out of the pit!
  29. Govorun
    Govorun 25 October 2017 21: 44 New
    0
    A helicopter, a tank, a sau, an assault rifle and a machine gun and this is the best thing in the USA because of which everyone is afraid to fight it ???
    And just wants to fight with someone ....
  30. earloop
    earloop 26 October 2017 00: 53 New
    0
    Oh yeah! Scary! However.
  31. misti1973
    misti1973 26 October 2017 02: 53 New
    +1
    So the United States does not fight against serious opponents. Apache is still okay, Abrams is heavy, and howitzers are no longer relevant. Our ATGMs can indeed be considered the best, like grenade launchers. The USA is a master of hybrid wars and has the ability to transfer a huge number of people and equipment. a bunch of military bases, a huge fleet ... During the Desert Storm, they demonstrated it.
  32. ORIANIN
    ORIANIN 26 October 2017 05: 28 New
    0
    Some kind of fuyn ... Facts where?
  33. kapitanKO
    kapitanKO 26 October 2017 07: 51 New
    0
    This position has long been known, they write ratings of those types of weapons where they are not up to the mark, choose assessment criteria for themselves, and they are all super. And where everyone is silent well
  34. Altona
    Altona 26 October 2017 10: 46 New
    0
    The article is clearly propaganda, there are no comparisons, only "hooray", smashed and thunder. A good sample for Vitaly-DEPARTMENT.
  35. Oleg Salov
    Oleg Salov 26 October 2017 11: 11 New
    +3
    The question was asked, of course, not correctly, what does it mean that no one wants to fight with the United States, and no one just wants to fight with anyone and the United States in particular, it is the United States that wants to fight with everyone to show who’s the leader in the world, but again not on their own, and to recruit more countries to create a coalition, the USA itself does not fight after Vietnam, and without the coalition the USA are afraid to fight with someone, they don’t want to disgrace, and then they press on the cap again, and then, it’s not technology that wins, but the people who control this technique, and the technique in the hands of an American, is a pile of metal.
  36. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 26 October 2017 11: 22 New
    0
    The point of fighting with those who are already destroying themselves?
  37. Michael
    Michael 26 October 2017 12: 05 New
    0
    It's like fighting a whore
  38. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 26 October 2017 13: 55 New
    0
    That is, not because they are exceptional superhuman, and everyone wants to live like them? However, did they go on the mend?
  39. complete zero
    complete zero 26 October 2017 14: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Krasnyiy komissar
    Mi-24 - far from the most successful example of a combat helicopter, an attempt to cross the drummer and transporter. The Ka-52 is a purely percussion turret designed to destroy enemy armored vehicles and infantry. He showed himself well in Syria, fighting jihad mobiles and the fortifications of militants. There are questions to his missile weapons, but the helicopter fleet is at altitude.

    but why would the Mi-24 "not the most successful"))) you read what real American soldiers write about it ... The board went through ALL the wars that were just .. the airborne squad .. and what's not successful in this?
    1. Krasnyiy komissar
      Krasnyiy komissar 26 October 2017 20: 54 New
      0
      The very concept of a flying BMP is flawed. To accommodate an eight-man landing, a large internal volume is required, which must be booked. The thickness of the armor allows you to protect people only from small arms fire, although the most important helicopter nodes are duplicated and have a more serious reservation. In Ka-52, Mi-28, and Apaches, most of the payload is armor and ammunition.
  40. complete zero
    complete zero 26 October 2017 14: 10 New
    0
    Quote: raw174
    Quote: complete zero
    come on, you’ve "made money" (although of course you’ve made money) -but Lendlis was vital .. yes, and the Reich bombing did its job properly ... if by 1944 the Germans had relocated their best aviation group from the Eastern Front (JG 52 ) ... how many lives did our pilots save?

    In the relevant topic, I argued with the members of the forum on this topic, each remained his own, but I also managed to learn a lot of interesting things. I believe that YES, profit! The war pulled the US economy to new heights and all help paid off many times! As a result, the world is organized as the United States needs it! And if Germany squeezed the USSR a little more, then the United States would act on their side.

    I "don’t breathe love" for the Anglo-Saxons and in general I think ... turn Nikolai the second towards the Kaiser (and not the Entente) —the story could go differently (the economic power of Germany and Russia's huge resource potential) —but history does not know the subjunctive mood .. .and we do not know with you .. would the US enter the war on the side of Hitler or NO
  41. Metallurg_2
    Metallurg_2 26 October 2017 21: 59 New
    +1
    Quote times:
    The 60-ton Abrams "boasts a 120-millimeter cannon, uranium armor, which reaches three feet in thickness, and a speed of more than 40 miles per hour"
    Add: as well as cardboard sides, which are pierced by grenades from RPG-7 even of the earliest samples. And also an auxiliary diesel engine in the stern of the tower, which is ignited from the DShK.

    Quote two:
    In 1991, in Iraq, he "smashed" Soviet-made equipment.
    We add: Hussein was armed with T-72A tanks manufactured in the early 70s. And the Arabs fired with 3M9 all-cast-iron blanks, which were withdrawn from the arsenal of the SA back in 1973 and were used only as training. Mindful of the results of all the Arab-Israeli wars, our strategists decided that writing them something newer simply does not make sense.

    And in general, how many Arabs do not arm - and to make them brave will not work ...
  42. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 27 October 2017 04: 26 New
    0
    “The answer to the question whether M-1 Abrams is the best tank in the world depends on who you are talking to and, more importantly, from which country your interlocutor. But there is no doubt that this is one of the best combat vehicles, ”the author claims.
    One word aftertaste!
  43. complete zero
    complete zero 27 October 2017 07: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: Krasnyiy komissar
    The very concept of a flying BMP is flawed. To accommodate an eight-man landing, a large internal volume is required, which must be booked. The thickness of the armor allows you to protect people only from small arms fire, although the most important helicopter nodes are duplicated and have a more serious reservation. In Ka-52, Mi-28, and Apaches, most of the payload is armor and ammunition.

    dear .. (I don’t know what your combat experience is) .. but I’ll say that I know ... Apache pilots are categorically not recommended to go in direct contact with an enemy who has means of destruction (DShK, etc.) ... for the armor there simply NO .. Unlike the "crocodile" which irones the trenches and so on (like an attack aircraft) .. There was a program about how the Americans flew to Apache in Lipetsk .. and there the possibilities of both were clearly demonstrated .. respected theory one thing ... and the war is completely different (nothing personal)
  44. Mih1974
    Mih1974 27 October 2017 16: 39 New
    0
    laughing laughing crying laughing laughing
    I have not heard such nonsense for a long time. Only nuclear weapons prevent other countries from declaring war on the United States.
  45. complete zero
    complete zero 27 October 2017 17: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Povshnik
    ... And power is and will is, but there is no will! :) ... Penguins have good technique, no doubt. But all military conflicts, even, excuse me, the game "World of Tanks", show that it’s not the technology that is fighting, but the people ... The spirit is needed! it’s weak with them! ... And the fact that you can’t deal with cap-making is true.

    but why did you get the idea that they have no military spirit? ... this is a stereotype
  46. Abel
    Abel 27 October 2017 22: 42 New
    0
    Americans - to fight? Do they know anything but bombing and throwing rockets? Ground forces - average scab. "Abrams put on a tank biathlon? Have to make concrete tracks and strengthen bridges, otherwise it will fail
  47. rickardo.dortikos
    rickardo.dortikos 29 October 2017 11: 44 New
    0
    What normal country, except for the USA, developed and approved the concept of war with 165 countries of the world at once at the same time? ------------ It doesn’t occur to anyone! ---------- Only "Supermen! ---------- These bandits need their power over any opponent to be overwhelming! ---------- At least 10 times! ------- - If their advantage is only 9 times, they will not attack! -------- They will destroy opponents through economic sanctions or through the "orange revolutions"! ----------- Now they begin to build to 12 existing, another 88 carrier groups! ---------- Why? ---------- I told you to confront, in which case the whole World! --- ------- RUSSIA has only one, old, feeble aircraft carrier cruiser, and the USA already has 12! --------- What? ---------- But they dare, bastards say one hundred RUSSIA aggressor! ---------- And what about the UN Security Council? --------- He supports the United States! --------- Why? ---- ------- It is a structural unit of the US State Department! -------- It depends entirely on the USA! ----------- This is a call "ATLANTIC VALUES" is given --------- In another way, "WORLD ORDER"!
  48. Den nn
    Den nn 29 October 2017 12: 17 New
    0
    18 year only for Putin !!!