Are Russian aircraft superior to American aircraft?

[Bleipriester]

America can quickly deploy aircraft where it wants but are they superior to their Russian counterparts?

Examples:
The SU-35s is a multi-role fighter that can track 30 air based enemies at a time of which it can fight 8 at a time. It has a maximum enemy detection range of 182 Km. It features a lot of stuff including a reduced radar signature.

The F-35 Lightning II is a controversial multi-role fighter designed for mass production. 3000 pieces are scheduled to be delivered to the US and its allies in the coming decades. Its capabilities and reliability are questioned. It also features a lot of stuff but its stealth capabilities are not as advanced as that of the F-22.

 

[there4eyeM]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

 

[DarkFury]

All in all its pretty even with a few stand outs. The SU-20 was an awesome plane ahead of its time. For the Americans the finest stand out has to be the A-10 "Warthog"

Those two jets were designed for two different things. You have to control the air to take the ground. And nothing beats a Warthog for ground cover.



Best damn border and military man support EVER built.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No the the OP, though 40 years ago the BMP outclassed our APC as difference of degree not kind. The helicopter gunships coming online for the Russkies were very good.

Now, no, the American arsenal is better and superior.

 

[DarkFury]

No the the OP, though 40 years ago the BMP outclassed our APC as difference of degree not kind. The helicopter gunships coming online for the Russkies were very good.

Now, no, the American arsenal is better and superior.

Russian equipment relies more on skill.
American equipment relies more on tech.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Russian planes are good and generally on par with US planes. Generally. We lead in technical areas because we spend 650 billion a year on defense and the Russians spend maybe 80 billion.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

Any Sherman that killed a Tiger did it thru luck or swarm attack....Airpower ......that was their scourge and maybe few tank destroyer types

 

[Vigilante]

One never knows with this CIC!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

Any Sherman that killed a Tiger did it thru luck or swarm attack....Airpower ......that was their scourge and maybe few tank destroyer types

Yeah the Sherman was, comparatively, a mediocre tank re a Tiger. A Tiger could kill a Sherman from over a mile away, while a Sherman had to hit a Tiger from maybe 400 yards in the rear of the Tiger. There is a documented Tiger taking 200+ hits from allied tanks on the front and side and then still driving 40 miles to their rear area for repair. Whereas one 88mm round from a Tiger was powerful enough to go through the turret of a Sherman, in one side and out the other. The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because the Sherman was gasoline powered and one hit would start it burning and kill the British crews inside, whom the Germans called Tommys.

But the US produced 45,000 Shermans and the Russians produced 40,000 T-34s, while the Germans produced only 1800 Tigers.

 

[Bleipriester]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

Any Sherman that killed a Tiger did it thru luck or swarm attack....Airpower ......that was their scourge and maybe few tank destroyer types

Yeah the Sherman was, comparatively, a mediocre tank re a Tiger. A Tiger could kill a Sherman from over a mile away, while a Sherman had to hit a Tiger from maybe 400 yards in the rear of the Tiger. There is a documented Tiger taking 200+ hits from allied tanks on the front and side and then still driving 40 miles to their rear area for repair. Whereas one 88mm round from a Tiger was powerful enough to go through the turret of a Sherman, in one side and out the other. The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because the Sherman was gasoline powered and one hit would start it burning and kill the British crews inside, whom the Germans called Tommys.

But the US produced 45,000 Shermans and the Russians produced 40,000 T-34s, while the Germans produced only 1800 Tigers.

In WWII, there were three types of tanks: light, medium and heavy tanks. While the Shermans and the T-34 were medium tanks, the Tiger was a heavy tank. Thus, any comparison is useless. The Germans´ medium tank was the Pzkw IV, of which about 20.000 were produced.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

Any Sherman that killed a Tiger did it thru luck or swarm attack....Airpower ......that was their scourge and maybe few tank destroyer types

Yeah the Sherman was, comparatively, a mediocre tank re a Tiger. A Tiger could kill a Sherman from over a mile away, while a Sherman had to hit a Tiger from maybe 400 yards in the rear of the Tiger. There is a documented Tiger taking 200+ hits from allied tanks on the front and side and then still driving 40 miles to their rear area for repair. Whereas one 88mm round from a Tiger was powerful enough to go through the turret of a Sherman, in one side and out the other. The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because the Sherman was gasoline powered and one hit would start it burning and kill the British crews inside, whom the Germans called Tommys.

But the US produced 45,000 Shermans and the Russians produced 40,000 T-34s, while the Germans produced only 1800 Tigers.

In WWII, there were three types of tanks: light, medium and heavy tanks. While the Shermans and the T-34 were medium tanks, the Tiger was a heavy tank. Thus, any comparison is useless. The Germans´ medium tank was the Pzkw IV, of which about 20.000 were produced.

The US didn't produce heavy tanks until very late war, thus the face off was between the Sherman, Tiger, and T-34. Both allied tanks faced up well against the Panzer IV. The Tiger made allied tanks crews shite their pants.

 

[DarkFury]

Superior isn't good enough in weaponry. It's enough of what's good to overcome superior.

(Shermans vs Tigers, etc.)

Any Sherman that killed a Tiger did it thru luck or swarm attack....Airpower ......that was their scourge and maybe few tank destroyer types

Yeah the Sherman was, comparatively, a mediocre tank re a Tiger. A Tiger could kill a Sherman from over a mile away, while a Sherman had to hit a Tiger from maybe 400 yards in the rear of the Tiger. There is a documented Tiger taking 200+ hits from allied tanks on the front and side and then still driving 40 miles to their rear area for repair. Whereas one 88mm round from a Tiger was powerful enough to go through the turret of a Sherman, in one side and out the other. The Germans called them 'Tommy cookers' because the Sherman was gasoline powered and one hit would start it burning and kill the British crews inside, whom the Germans called Tommys.

But the US produced 45,000 Shermans and the Russians produced 40,000 T-34s, while the Germans produced only 1800 Tigers.

In WWII, there were three types of tanks: light, medium and heavy tanks. While the Shermans and the T-34 were medium tanks, the Tiger was a heavy tank. Thus, any comparison is useless. The Germans´ medium tank was the Pzkw IV, of which about 20.000 were produced.

The US didn't produce heavy tanks until very late war, thus the face off was between the Sherman, Tiger, and T-34. Both allied tanks faced up well against the Panzer IV. The Tiger made allied tanks crews shite their pants.

American tanks carried light armor and ran on gas so they blew up easy. German tanks carried heavy armor and ran on Diesel.

 

[Bleipriester]

The US didn't produce heavy tanks until very late war, thus the face off was between the Sherman, Tiger, and T-34.

That the US did not have heavy tanks doesn´t mean that the Tiger was a common appearance. Germans had various models of improvisational tank hunters, Sturmgeschütze (tanks without turret but flat silhouette) and tanks. And - of course - anti-tank guns.
However, the fear factor of the Pzkw IV was high as it was often mistakenly considered a Tiger.
The Russians on their part had some heavy tank models that were built in large numbers, namely the JS series and the KV series.

Both allied tanks faced up well against the Panzer IV.

By far the best medium tank was the T-34.

The Tiger made allied tanks crews shite their pants.

The Tiger was essentially a hull of thick steel with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on it. Very effective, though, but the far more interesting tank is the Panther.

 

[mudwhistle]

I would rather have an AK-47 or an RPG than what is in our inventory. We have to use the crap that American companies sell to us.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The worst thing about the internet, these nerd-like discussions that veer off into "no the Millenium Falcom was not ion drive you idiot". Jesus what is the point. Go find a forum for tanks.

 

[Bleipriester]

Go find a forum for tanks.

Oh, sorry. Please, excuse me! I really thought it was you who started writing about WWII tanks in my modern aircraft thread...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Go find a forum for tanks.

Oh, sorry. Please, excuse me! I really thought it was you who started writing about WWII tanks in my modern aircraft thread...

You're excused, common mistake.