Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ukraine: Why NATO Tactics fail" video.

 @asahearts1 Russia had infinite ammo. Not the US.
2
 @xxxlonewolf49 Air support is a way to deliver fires. Fire is agnostic.
1
 @TheLumberjack1987 Using aircraft to strike artillery puts pilots and airframe in SAM range too...
1
 @xxxlonewolf49 The effects are the same. If I detect an enemy massing up and I call an equivalent fire, it shouldn't matter if aircraft or artillery delivered it.
1
 @alek9195 There were instances in this war where Ukraine achieved localized air superiority.
1
@xxxlonewolf49 Nobody said they are the same. They just accomplish the same objective. Targeting is irrelevant, and the munitions/effects on target is determined by payload. For example, an air dropped cluster munition can have its effects mimicked by several artillery shells of cluster munition. How it's called is irrelevant. You're getting bogged down in the details. Accuracy is determined by the weapon itself, artillery can be guided. Or if you're firing unguided shells, you can use your known shot dispersion to call for a number of shells so that the % that lands on target is equivalent to air dropped munitions. Available use is precisely the type of factor that would force you to use artillery in a situation where air support is not available. Again, range means that aerial strikes can be conducted at strategic depth (although they require more planning and risk so they're less common), but there's a bubble where you'll have both kinds of fire overlapping. You're confusing "use" in a tactical sense and "use" in a very literal meaning, as in operating the weapon. Air support can replace artillery and artillery can replace air support, the context of the situation of what determines what's doable or isn't.
1
 @TacoSallust Tell that to Murz. Bet you don't even know who that is. Or was.
1
 @asahearts1 Germany claimed so much Soviet territory. So much. All for nothing.
1