I don't, I was making a joke. Stereotyping if you will. 4x uglier because it is Russian (Russian things aren't designed with beauty in mind) 4x less accurate because the Russians don't need to be accurate they just need a big enough boom, etc, etc.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2232 times:
Sorry, but most Russian claims about their hardware during the cold war were Grade A BS. Remember the "scary" MiG-25?
You first have to get into a position to deliver such a weapon. That's OK, Ivan wasting his money is a good thing.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 875 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
So they shoved a few tons of explosives out of a plane and detonated it a few feet off the ground. Strap a few USAF MOABs together, shove it out of a C-5, then sing some patriaotic American song and watch shiat get bloweded the heck up!
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2147 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 11): That is why I compared it to the old US Daisy Cutter, which was designed to clear out helicopter landing zones.
It was only during Desert Storm that we really got into rocking people's worlds with the things.
It does look like a Daisy Cutter bomb the US uses by the looks of th blasts I doubt its any larger if you can find one of the original video's of the MOAB bomb going off when they first tested it th blast looks considerably smaller on the Russian one.