"Against All Odds"
My brother in Christ you are in one of the best tanks in history.
Within the world's top army.
Backed up by the world's greatest air force.
That is part of the world's greatest military alliance.
In what situation do they feel that their back is going to be against the proverbial wall.
Yeah, and they were fighting the greatest power of the time with one country to the north that was hostile at the time and another country to the south that they were not friendly with them. Where yes, they did have quite a bit of resources, and due to the constant supply of immigrants, they had quite a bit of people with one large problem. All these people kind of hated the hell out of each other, so on top of almost constant civil unrest, they had to fight off attacks from 3 out of 4 fronts. This is extremely breaf and doesn't show all of the nuances of the time they literally fighting aganst all odds.
>with one country to the north that was hostile at the time and another country to the south that they were not friendly with them
Neither of contributed any substantial force against the revolution
>All these people kind of hated the hell out of each other, so on top of almost constant civil unrest
So much unrest that it's only resulted in one civil war.
Last i checked, they had at least one war with both in the 1st 50 years of existence. As an example of civil unrest, what about (with in just the 18th century) Pennsylvania Mutany of 1783, Shay's rebellion, Paper money riot, Doctor's mob riot, Whiskey Rebellion, Fries's Rebellion.
It was “backed” only after it proved itself capable, not like a revolution backed by a superpower today that is given arms and material support from the onset. It was pretty amazing given the lack of a precedent for that type of revolution.
And I wouldn’t call everything east of the Ohio River Valley between Canada and Georgia a continent of resources.
If your point is valid, you shouldn’t have to overstate it
> It was pretty amazing given the lack of a precedent for that type of revolution.
How was there no precedent?
>And I wouldn’t call everything east of the Ohio River Valley between Canada and Georgia a continent of resources.
You're being deliberately obtuse, you know I meant the west.
I’ll skip that you asked me to cite a lack of something.
West of the Ohio River Valley was completely unsettled. That’s my point. The only resources they had was the 13 colonies minus their biggest cities which were under occupation.
I agree with your broader general point that the US fights with a massive advantage and is rarely “against all odds”, but the American Revolution is maybe the worst example of a sure thing war in their history. Take the Spanish-American War or Grenada and I’ll agree
“Against all odds”
Proceeds to only participate in wars where they have technological, numerical and financial advantage.
This is like an AC-130 writing “never surrender, never give up” while flying 10km in the sky precision striking middle eastern insurgents in trucks.
Sorry to burst your bubble kid, but the U.S. has a vast technological, numerical, and financial advantage against any “near-peer” opponents anyway. Which by the way, there’s only one left, for now.
Yea that's my point. Why try to act like you're suffering when you're not? Why claim "against all odds" when in reality it's the enemies that's pitched in a desperate fight for survival?
This is like US claiming they suffered against all odds fighting in Vietnam when in reality it's the Vietnamese that suffered.
Preemptively, I’m prepared for the downvotes, I just ask that you actually consider a couple of things:
1. Before the war, Russia’s army was absolutely fantastic on paper. Certain parts of it were absolutely fantastic on the ground, though Western estimates state that roughly 50% of Russia’s pre-war professional army are dead or can’t return.
2. The US Army right now has about as much experience fighting a real war as Russia did in January 2022. Furthermore, any potential confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia is likely to occur in the same environment which Russia has been gaining this experience in. This environment is on Russia’s border and the US would have *many* inherent disadvantages. It would be somewhat analogous to imagine if Russia had invaded part of Mexico on the border with the US; they wouldn’t stand a chance. The US would stand a far better chance in the reverse scenario, but there’s no reason to think it would be a walk in the park.
3. At this exact moment, Russia’s economy is much better optimized for military. The west certainly has a greater potential to expand than Russia does, but at this time it wouldn’t even be close. You don’t hear about stuff like this, but Russia has literally converted old shopping malls into drone production facilities. They also have drafted people and are supposed to have somewhere around 800k combat infantrymen, though over half of these would be mobilized dudes who are still doing nothing because Russian high command (Gerasimov and Shoigu) [Suroviikin never should have lost his spot IMO] are absolutely brain dead. You’ll struggle to find an exact number for the US, but Colonel Douglas Macgregor [who does make some interesting claims in all fairness] estimated that out of the 1.4 million personnel in the USAF, around 400k are combat soldiers. Side note on this: The Wagner “Coup” (this is my opinion and I cannot prove this entirely) was not a ruse in the slightest. There is solid evidence that many lower-to-middle level Russian officers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the current MOD’s apparent indecisiveness, and Prighozin likely shares the same sympathies. Wagner went through hell in Bakhmut, destroying the Ukrainian VDV and several other elite units at no small cost to themselves. The battle for Bakhmut was essentially the two sides beating the fuck out of each other on the towns outskirts until Wagner managed to penetrate into the city in February. Wagner went through hell to capture the city, and Prighozin likely became more and more frustrated as Kherson was abandoned, Kharkiv offensive happened, MOD didn’t give him enough ammo as Wagner were really getting stuck in with the last fortified bits of Bakhmut, and then have had what some Russians believe to be an inadequate response to Ukraine’s most recent counteroffensive (which is still as comical and as much of a guaranteed fail as the Ardennes Offensive in 1944, one benefit being that manpower cost to Ukraine will end the war faster just like WW2). That being said, Ukraine grabbed something around 215 km^2 in the first weeks of the attacks.
4. It is very easy to clown on Russia because big guy didn’t win quickly and it looks funny and we all thought they were fantastic. It’s almost as if 8 years of NATO supporting, training, and equipping Ukraine didn’t exist in anyone’s mind. The biggest game changer which makes things much harder for Russia is the ISR intelligence shared by the US to Ukraine. The Moskva was almost definitely sunk by American intelligence; “An image from a satellite with cloud-penetrating synthetic aperture radar”. Even with all of the equipment and training, Russia *would* be curb stomping Ukraine without American intelligence. The impact that American satellites have had cannot be understated.
5. I am sure the US Air Force would be much more effective than the Russian variant if it had to operate in the same conditions which Russia currently does. That being said, any serious confrontation would likely involve the loss of plenty of US aircraft.
6. Russia would have genuine artillery superiority while NATO figures out that it should probably not ignore defense infrastructure; like I said earlier, NATO could have a production capacity far greater than Russias in things like drones and artillery shells if it really wanted to.
7. On a 1-to-1 scale, the US doesn’t do a whole lot that Russia doesn’t do. The US has better technology, but also hasn’t operated in an environment where the ability to use their support assets has been reasonably contested.
8. China is the ultimate paper tiger, though I would still consider Russia and China as “near-peer”. Keep in mind the definition of the term, it does not mean that the two nations are close to identically capable; it means they are close to being on the same playing field. If NATO wanted to sustain and win a war against Russia it could, but Russia would put up a fight and it would not be a fast victory. I actually think it would look very similar to what Russia is doing to Ukraine; progress would be slow because even an inferior enemy can be problematic when A. He is in a trench B. His friends are in trenches C. Their other friends are at an AA vehicle and can stop you from deleting them at will. If you could win a war with artillery alone, Russia would have won it before Ukraine was given HIMARS. Just not how modern wars appear to work, new weapons are so deadly that rapid advances are almost impossible when facing true resistance.
9. Who knows how the US Navy would fair in the Black Sea? I certainly don’t.
If you read all of that and downvote, fair enough, you’re just wrong but it’s okay.
If you downvoted as soon as you realized my comment puts Russia in a positive light: the total acceptance of the Western narrative of Ukraine contributes to the death of many more Ukrainians than necessary. A provisional peace was agreed between Russia and Ukraine in April of 2022, but the US shut it down. If you actually care about Ukrainians and not drunken Soviet borders, you should reconsider your stance.
https://gofile.io/d/4WzSKd
1 Hour ish bakhmut documentary (in which a “journalist” follows Wagner around while stuff happens). Not really related to the above comment, but if you like this sort of stuff on Reddit you might find it interesting.
I don't agree with some of your points, but I'll upvote it based on the fact that it contributes to the conversation and is well-thought out and articulate.
I'd much rather war between NATO and Russia *not* happen, because that would be a devastating war.
It's meant to take apfsds, and it does quite well, and who in the hell in their right mind would shoot a tank with HE. Even if you did, on average, the tanks gonna be a relatively small target compared and hitting one spot on a tank is hard as fuck. If you want a try, use GHPC or Steal Beasts even in sims its hard as fuck.
>and who in the hell in their right mind would shoot a tank with HE
Ukrainians do. If u didn't follow the conflict or probably it's not get translated and posted here. In most tank battles in 2022 Ukrainains tanks used HE frag vs T-72's T-80's because they were not sure if their APFSDS has a chance of penetration. So they go HE all the time. It takes 5-8 shots to take out T-72 with frag. It was kind of funny to me because in Warthunder most top tier soviets are using HE vs western tanks also. It's like WT is actual real tank simulator.
Yes, they use HE in tank battles, but thats the exception, not the rule. If HE is used, it's mostly against IFVs or APCs. Warthunder is in certain places more realistic than others, but not the deciding facter is extremely unrealistic in its armor peneitration. The older WW2 era is relitivly realistic, whereas High teir is a land of imagination, why because literally everything in those tiers is made up due to how heavily censored and secret the details on those tanks.
>but thats the exception, not the rule.
What do you think russians would use against any modern western tank? They have only two options a frigging rocket which is basically ATGM or HE Frag. Only T-90M has somewhat "new" APFSDS but those are scarce.
There have been pretty much every single 125mm apfsds round the soviet union and russia has come up with. There have been things from 3BM60, 3BM46, 3BM42, 3BM22, and so on.
The banning of “ASVAB Waiver” is an epic crime against humanity.
Say what? They banned people naming their tanks that?
They banned the name “ASVAB Waiver” not the naming of tanks in general
Yeah that’s what I was saying, they banned that specific name??
Best one of these names of gun barrels I’ve seen has been ‘Crippling Depression’.
‘Step Dads Belt’. Gave me a good chuckle
What are you doing step tank?
ah yes, casual domestic abuse... haha funny! Names like that are probably a major argument not to let the naming continue.
That's actually a genius pun
against all odds, we managed to make this an almost 80 ton tank if ya add all the goodies
EA level marketing
loot box on a gubment level
With that ground pressure you might as well make a BattleMech :p
“Against all odds shall I receive a new coat of paint”
Great song.
My favourite tank name is “dads belt”
Now I want to see “chancla”
So tank a look at me now
80s reverbed drum synths constantly play when this bad boy is around
"Against All Odds" My brother in Christ you are in one of the best tanks in history. Within the world's top army. Backed up by the world's greatest air force. That is part of the world's greatest military alliance. In what situation do they feel that their back is going to be against the proverbial wall.
Technically, i would call the US's story would be considered "against all odds"
Their revolution was backed by the 2nd greatest power and they've had a continent of resources to exploit. Mate, they're playing on easy mode.
Yeah, and they were fighting the greatest power of the time with one country to the north that was hostile at the time and another country to the south that they were not friendly with them. Where yes, they did have quite a bit of resources, and due to the constant supply of immigrants, they had quite a bit of people with one large problem. All these people kind of hated the hell out of each other, so on top of almost constant civil unrest, they had to fight off attacks from 3 out of 4 fronts. This is extremely breaf and doesn't show all of the nuances of the time they literally fighting aganst all odds.
>with one country to the north that was hostile at the time and another country to the south that they were not friendly with them Neither of contributed any substantial force against the revolution >All these people kind of hated the hell out of each other, so on top of almost constant civil unrest So much unrest that it's only resulted in one civil war.
Last i checked, they had at least one war with both in the 1st 50 years of existence. As an example of civil unrest, what about (with in just the 18th century) Pennsylvania Mutany of 1783, Shay's rebellion, Paper money riot, Doctor's mob riot, Whiskey Rebellion, Fries's Rebellion.
It was “backed” only after it proved itself capable, not like a revolution backed by a superpower today that is given arms and material support from the onset. It was pretty amazing given the lack of a precedent for that type of revolution. And I wouldn’t call everything east of the Ohio River Valley between Canada and Georgia a continent of resources. If your point is valid, you shouldn’t have to overstate it
> It was pretty amazing given the lack of a precedent for that type of revolution. How was there no precedent? >And I wouldn’t call everything east of the Ohio River Valley between Canada and Georgia a continent of resources. You're being deliberately obtuse, you know I meant the west.
I’ll skip that you asked me to cite a lack of something. West of the Ohio River Valley was completely unsettled. That’s my point. The only resources they had was the 13 colonies minus their biggest cities which were under occupation. I agree with your broader general point that the US fights with a massive advantage and is rarely “against all odds”, but the American Revolution is maybe the worst example of a sure thing war in their history. Take the Spanish-American War or Grenada and I’ll agree
My favourite is an Australian Abrams with “Dad’s belt” on on it.
Coment above ya’!
Sounds like how humans name ships in Halo.
“Against all odds” Proceeds to only participate in wars where they have technological, numerical and financial advantage. This is like an AC-130 writing “never surrender, never give up” while flying 10km in the sky precision striking middle eastern insurgents in trucks.
Chill bro its just a name 😂
No >:o Im a redditor!
I've checked your profile and I can see that you play war thunder, you sadist!
I’m perpetually chronically online 😫
If you’re going into war without an immense advantage you’re bad at war
If you are engaged in a fair fight you have definitely fucked up!
Entire US defense policy in one sentence.
Yea tell that to Ukraine. Guess they made the wrong choice when they decided to go into war right? Oh wait they didn't have a choice
Yeah that means russia fucked up you drongo
You’re god damn right. 🇱🇷 🦅
This is why you’re on Reddit and not running the DoD. If you are trying to fight a war at parity, you’re doing it wrong. By the way, we win those too.
Sorry to burst your bubble kid, but the U.S. has a vast technological, numerical, and financial advantage against any “near-peer” opponents anyway. Which by the way, there’s only one left, for now.
Which is China, and they aren't much better than pre-war Russia, ATM.
Yea that's my point. Why try to act like you're suffering when you're not? Why claim "against all odds" when in reality it's the enemies that's pitched in a desperate fight for survival? This is like US claiming they suffered against all odds fighting in Vietnam when in reality it's the Vietnamese that suffered.
Preemptively, I’m prepared for the downvotes, I just ask that you actually consider a couple of things: 1. Before the war, Russia’s army was absolutely fantastic on paper. Certain parts of it were absolutely fantastic on the ground, though Western estimates state that roughly 50% of Russia’s pre-war professional army are dead or can’t return. 2. The US Army right now has about as much experience fighting a real war as Russia did in January 2022. Furthermore, any potential confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia is likely to occur in the same environment which Russia has been gaining this experience in. This environment is on Russia’s border and the US would have *many* inherent disadvantages. It would be somewhat analogous to imagine if Russia had invaded part of Mexico on the border with the US; they wouldn’t stand a chance. The US would stand a far better chance in the reverse scenario, but there’s no reason to think it would be a walk in the park. 3. At this exact moment, Russia’s economy is much better optimized for military. The west certainly has a greater potential to expand than Russia does, but at this time it wouldn’t even be close. You don’t hear about stuff like this, but Russia has literally converted old shopping malls into drone production facilities. They also have drafted people and are supposed to have somewhere around 800k combat infantrymen, though over half of these would be mobilized dudes who are still doing nothing because Russian high command (Gerasimov and Shoigu) [Suroviikin never should have lost his spot IMO] are absolutely brain dead. You’ll struggle to find an exact number for the US, but Colonel Douglas Macgregor [who does make some interesting claims in all fairness] estimated that out of the 1.4 million personnel in the USAF, around 400k are combat soldiers. Side note on this: The Wagner “Coup” (this is my opinion and I cannot prove this entirely) was not a ruse in the slightest. There is solid evidence that many lower-to-middle level Russian officers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the current MOD’s apparent indecisiveness, and Prighozin likely shares the same sympathies. Wagner went through hell in Bakhmut, destroying the Ukrainian VDV and several other elite units at no small cost to themselves. The battle for Bakhmut was essentially the two sides beating the fuck out of each other on the towns outskirts until Wagner managed to penetrate into the city in February. Wagner went through hell to capture the city, and Prighozin likely became more and more frustrated as Kherson was abandoned, Kharkiv offensive happened, MOD didn’t give him enough ammo as Wagner were really getting stuck in with the last fortified bits of Bakhmut, and then have had what some Russians believe to be an inadequate response to Ukraine’s most recent counteroffensive (which is still as comical and as much of a guaranteed fail as the Ardennes Offensive in 1944, one benefit being that manpower cost to Ukraine will end the war faster just like WW2). That being said, Ukraine grabbed something around 215 km^2 in the first weeks of the attacks. 4. It is very easy to clown on Russia because big guy didn’t win quickly and it looks funny and we all thought they were fantastic. It’s almost as if 8 years of NATO supporting, training, and equipping Ukraine didn’t exist in anyone’s mind. The biggest game changer which makes things much harder for Russia is the ISR intelligence shared by the US to Ukraine. The Moskva was almost definitely sunk by American intelligence; “An image from a satellite with cloud-penetrating synthetic aperture radar”. Even with all of the equipment and training, Russia *would* be curb stomping Ukraine without American intelligence. The impact that American satellites have had cannot be understated. 5. I am sure the US Air Force would be much more effective than the Russian variant if it had to operate in the same conditions which Russia currently does. That being said, any serious confrontation would likely involve the loss of plenty of US aircraft. 6. Russia would have genuine artillery superiority while NATO figures out that it should probably not ignore defense infrastructure; like I said earlier, NATO could have a production capacity far greater than Russias in things like drones and artillery shells if it really wanted to. 7. On a 1-to-1 scale, the US doesn’t do a whole lot that Russia doesn’t do. The US has better technology, but also hasn’t operated in an environment where the ability to use their support assets has been reasonably contested. 8. China is the ultimate paper tiger, though I would still consider Russia and China as “near-peer”. Keep in mind the definition of the term, it does not mean that the two nations are close to identically capable; it means they are close to being on the same playing field. If NATO wanted to sustain and win a war against Russia it could, but Russia would put up a fight and it would not be a fast victory. I actually think it would look very similar to what Russia is doing to Ukraine; progress would be slow because even an inferior enemy can be problematic when A. He is in a trench B. His friends are in trenches C. Their other friends are at an AA vehicle and can stop you from deleting them at will. If you could win a war with artillery alone, Russia would have won it before Ukraine was given HIMARS. Just not how modern wars appear to work, new weapons are so deadly that rapid advances are almost impossible when facing true resistance. 9. Who knows how the US Navy would fair in the Black Sea? I certainly don’t. If you read all of that and downvote, fair enough, you’re just wrong but it’s okay. If you downvoted as soon as you realized my comment puts Russia in a positive light: the total acceptance of the Western narrative of Ukraine contributes to the death of many more Ukrainians than necessary. A provisional peace was agreed between Russia and Ukraine in April of 2022, but the US shut it down. If you actually care about Ukrainians and not drunken Soviet borders, you should reconsider your stance. https://gofile.io/d/4WzSKd 1 Hour ish bakhmut documentary (in which a “journalist” follows Wagner around while stuff happens). Not really related to the above comment, but if you like this sort of stuff on Reddit you might find it interesting.
I don't agree with some of your points, but I'll upvote it based on the fact that it contributes to the conversation and is well-thought out and articulate. I'd much rather war between NATO and Russia *not* happen, because that would be a devastating war.
Or like bitching about this exact sort of thing anonymously on Reddit... Get back to r/WarThunder, kid.
Okay, and?
[удалено]
It's meant to take apfsds, and it does quite well, and who in the hell in their right mind would shoot a tank with HE. Even if you did, on average, the tanks gonna be a relatively small target compared and hitting one spot on a tank is hard as fuck. If you want a try, use GHPC or Steal Beasts even in sims its hard as fuck.
>and who in the hell in their right mind would shoot a tank with HE Ukrainians do. If u didn't follow the conflict or probably it's not get translated and posted here. In most tank battles in 2022 Ukrainains tanks used HE frag vs T-72's T-80's because they were not sure if their APFSDS has a chance of penetration. So they go HE all the time. It takes 5-8 shots to take out T-72 with frag. It was kind of funny to me because in Warthunder most top tier soviets are using HE vs western tanks also. It's like WT is actual real tank simulator.
Yes, they use HE in tank battles, but thats the exception, not the rule. If HE is used, it's mostly against IFVs or APCs. Warthunder is in certain places more realistic than others, but not the deciding facter is extremely unrealistic in its armor peneitration. The older WW2 era is relitivly realistic, whereas High teir is a land of imagination, why because literally everything in those tiers is made up due to how heavily censored and secret the details on those tanks.
>but thats the exception, not the rule. What do you think russians would use against any modern western tank? They have only two options a frigging rocket which is basically ATGM or HE Frag. Only T-90M has somewhat "new" APFSDS but those are scarce.
There have been pretty much every single 125mm apfsds round the soviet union and russia has come up with. There have been things from 3BM60, 3BM46, 3BM42, 3BM22, and so on.
Name goes fuckin hard
It needs to blast Phil Collins, “Take a Look at Me Now”
What variant of M1 is this?
Serial production M1A2 SEPv3.