Comments by "Kevin Smithwick" (@KSmithwick1989) on "Ukraine’s Summer Offensive Ends in DISASTER" video.

What was the time stamp? I always see Russia doing bizzare things. Like priest blessing tanks while wearing medals.
2
@yellowtunes2756 The application would be comparable to the Russian employment of T-54 and T-62. They intend to use them for infantry support. Which is still a fairly viable option. Also 105×617 mm NATO is still fairly formidable in regards to flanking shots. The muzzle velocity is pretty substantial, as the case length is quite large. It's actually longer than the current standard 120x570 mm NATO.
2
@yellowtunes2756 In the case of T-72 your limited by the autoloader. The Leopard 1 use a fixed standardized shell case length. It's capable of firing shell types within the NATO 105 mm standard. While T-72s use different autoloaders between types. Older T-72s can't load newer projectiles, which are longer. Newer models such as T-72 B3M can load newer shells, because of the new autoloader.
2
 @holon4662 Yeah, it's pretty fun when someone responds with "cope". What you said is true, this guy's argument is full of holes and speculation.
2
The number itself is misleading. As not all vehicles are entirely destroyed. Mobility kills are still recoverable, unlike K-kills. Which are total loses.
2
That is in a rear staging area.
2
@_Vashe And they will probably be rebuild by the West. After the war becomes to costly for Russia. Which has a GDP smaller than Italy. The US/EU has a collective GDP of $40T. Financing the war effectively cost close to nothing in the larger economic scheme. While Russia was already struggling with foreign aid and soft power before the war.
1
That's a pretty ironic statement, given these vehicles have a better power/weight ratio than BMPs. Also BMP-3 and BMDs use aluminum in their construction also. So exactly do you have issue with.
1
@alikaraahmet5050 Definition does matter in regards to repairable vehicles. In the case of Russia vehicles there is certainly a higher incidents of catastrophic kills. Due to ammunition explosion caused by their faulty autoloader design. There is definitely a difference between Leopard 2s declared "destroyed". When compared to T-72s and T-90s that tossed their turret from ammunition fires.
1
@alikaraahmet5050 Your numbers are wrong. T-90M entered service in 2017, while Leopard 2 A6 was adopted nearly 20 years ago. Leopard 2 A7 would be a closer comparison. As Germany received the first units in 2014.
1
@yellowtunes2756 The same situation may play out there also. The partial destruction of the Kerch bridge has complicated logistics. At the same times Russian air defenses haven't been able to prevent Storm Shadow strikes on ammo dumps and command centers. There was a large ammo dump destroyed in Crimea yesterday.
1
Like the Russian arms industry doesn't profit from the conflict.
1
@malicesgossips In what way doesn't it? The arms industry accounts for over 20% of manufacturing jobs in Russia. By percentage, it makes up more of the Russian economy, than it does in the US.
1
@malicesgossips The Russian arms industry has been heavily privatized. UVZ and Kalashnikov Concern are publicly traded stock companies. It's not like Russia is Soviet Union.
1
@malicesgossips ROSTEC only owns a 26% stake in Kalashnikov Concern. Even Kamaz is a minority state owned at 49%. So I know you're not doing research before making these statements.
1
It's not unusual for people to volunteer to gain combat experience. Than use that experience to work as civilian instructors. Not all instructors employed by millitary are millitary personal. Some militaries employ civilian specialists as instructors in advance tactics and methods. That's how you get survivalist and competition shooters teaching SOF teams.
1
We seen videos where they get disabled. But the crews and passengers leave the vehicle. A rough estimate would be 3 crew and 5-6 passengers. Depending on the configuration and mission profile. Scout versions carry only 2 passengers.
1
They never stopped being used. NATO states still teach the older mine clearing methods. Because they are a reliable fall-back, when advanced methods are either not available. Or fail-safe methods are required to double check if a field has been properly cleared. It's ironic saying only one side is relying on technology. When both sides are employing drones and electronic warfare extensively.
1
It doesn't really work in a world where you can see everything from space. I'm pretty he never imagined mechanical eyes soaring above the battlefield. Showing the battlefield to their controller also.
1
Funny how the Russian shovel meme was built on a lie. I read the British report that "inspired" the meme. It just says Russian troops are using MPL-50s in close combat. Which is actually something Russian troops been doing for over a 100 years. With the same exact shovel design.
1
They didn't, they lost 20% of vehicles committed. As opposed to 20% of all vehicles in total. The losses are misleading, as it assumes all vehicles lost are not recoverable. He also referred to 30%, as opposed to the actual figure of 20%. Was a way of reinforcing his own narrative. Meaning he's effectively lying right in front of us.
1
Granted there is certainly more destroyed T-72s and BMPs. The western vehicles definitely have better crew survivability. Largely due to them not having faulty autoloader placement. Seriously what were the Soviet engineers thinking when they designed those vehicles. Then Russia still continued manufacturing variants of those same designs. Knowing full well they were death traps.
1
So in other words your saying Prigozhin should have followed through with his coup. But you have to use projection to allow yourself to admit it.
1
Where they when the Kerch bridge was attacked again?
1
@gmnsnr-__- Way is Russia honestly still manufacturing T-72s. It's the equivalent of the US still producing modified M-60 Pattons. Also, where are the active protection systems on these vehicles. ARENA was supposed to be operational back in 1994.
1
@malicesgossips What are you talking about. One of the reasons the Russian MOD gave for the invasion. Was securing territories with ethnic Russian majority. Which was the 4 oblasts, which Russia annexed. Without fully securing these territories, Russia would effectively undermine their own motive for the war.
1
If that is the case, then why does Russia control less territory than a year ago. They don't even fully control the territory the claimed to have annexed.
1
That's the primary method taught globally. It's a reliable method because detectors will not reliably detect plastic and composite cased mines.
1
@stemup Only if the mine is set off by enough pressure. In the case of AT mines, you can essentially step on them and not set them off.
1
@nasterfireguy4467 UVZ is not producing new tanks. It's more economical to upgrade existing hulls. They're right many of the hulls are decades old. And Russia is not producing enough new tanks. As demand is so great that refurbishing and upgrading old tanks is the only practical option. As producing new hulls en-mass would slow down the rate Russia can off-set their losses.
1
@alikaraahmet5050 That wouldn't be the case. As not all IFVs are M2 Bradley and all tanks Leopard 2. Your statement is essential a logical fallacy. Also not all the vehicles were "destroyed". The majority were damaged by mines and were still recoverable. Your number is also inflated Bradley loses are closer to 35%. Hence the incorrect 30% figure being used as a talking point, for all vehicles.
1