Comments by "s H" (@sH-ed5yf) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1.  @pieter-bashoogsteen2283  Video titles. Is the russian military failing? Where is the russian airforce? How many tanks does russia have left? Is ukraine winning?
    1
  2. Well then you mist the last 10 videos
    1
  3. Not realy. They took iraq in a mounth.
    1
  4. Oh there are many reasons to asume that. Russia has a huge military compared to its economy. Especially its nuclear arsenal. Nukes are expansive to build, maintain and store. We already saw the extreme corruption and inability of its military. And we know that russia always claims to be bigger thsn it is. So while they propably have multiple hundred or even thousands funktional nukes, the peobability for many, habing malfuncrions or are lacking expansive isotopes i high
    1
  5. ​ @Boris-do5rs  kiddo Russia is not even fighting Nato. And of course a2000 year old book tells us about modern day wars. Got it kid
    1
  6.  @davidmiller5028  not in the beginning. Back then there where not even 100k troops in combat. The mass mobilisation took place in the summer. And nope they just where relocated to the east
    1
  7. In fact including all reserves russia thrown in it was 250 k soildiers.
    1
  8.  @germansoldierman.17  Well that is not good my man. You should visit a doctor.
    1
  9. ​ @germansoldierman.17 no kid confirmed by picture. Also why is russia pulling out obsolete 70 year old tanks and asks Nortkorea for help if they do so well
    1
  10. ​ @digitaldazzle5836 we gave them 5% of Nato budget worth of equipment. Even stronger wapons are on the way. Already russia cant hold their lines.
    1
  11. So why are they buying arms grom north korea 😘
    1
  12. Dude they are losing. They must win this war otherwise they lose any intimidation, and capability to suppress neighboring countries. They should use almost everything.
    1
  13. Shoting down russians
    1
  14. Keep crying orc
    1
  15. They didnt. A battery consists of multiple launchers, comand Module and radar. Which are seperated by distance. So they might damaged one part the others are still working
    1
  16. Well the fact, that ukrain was literly surraunded by russia, and russia claims to have the biggest land force on earth. Yes it was likly ukraine would fall. And if incompetence wasnt so wide spread, they would have taken kiyv
    1
  17. Funny they basicly say the same as covert does
    1
  18. Ah ukrainian army is killed long ago. So all the ukrainian speakimg soildiers are US Autors I gues
    1
  19. Well sometimes yes. But way to few to controll the skys and bomb the UAF
    1
  20. This is a conventional war with clear frontlines. There are hundreds of targets. But russia still struggles to attack them
    1
  21. Yeah right. Except all of Mariopol is destroid. Multiple school, hospitals and Kindergardens where hit. Clusterbombs all over the place.
    1
  22. Yeah mariopol thanks the russians for the liberarion of their rubbel. The very fact that they couldt knock out the ukrsinian aurdefence and still get shot down is an embarresment
    1
  23. Nop just numbers
    1
  24. So why they dont just bomb kiew with bombers
    1
  25. What a silly liar you are
    1
  26.  @Boris-do5rs  lets make a deal. You finally tell me where this 17 to one ratio is comming from and I give you my source ;)
    1
  27.  @Boris-do5rs  no Radar can see over the horizon, that is not how light works. That is why russia and Amerika have early waring Radar planes. You know literly nothing kid
    1
  28.  @Boris-do5rs  they cant in fact not. They can see a bit better with low frequency. But only so much. A b21 100 km away is invisible regardless.
    1
  29.  @Boris-do5rs  And accourding to you russia has a very great success with SU57. Something you still refuse to provide evidence for. So accourding to you russian stealth is great, while amerikan stealth is obsolet. Wtf
    1
  30.  @Boris-do5rs  nope you repeat what he tells you. You can in theory see stealth better with low frequency but.but only at a certsin distance. And it lightd the Radar Station up like a christmas tree, risking getting detected by AR missles.
    1
  31.  @Boris-do5rs  you made the claim. Meaning unless you just made it up, you must have red it somewhere. So where was that
    1
  32.  @Boris-do5rs  those drones have 600 km plus reach. So you dont have any evidence for wctive use of Su57, you also refuse to provide evidence for this 17 to 1 claime. You are thereofore just a confused russian fanboy. Fait enough. Took you long enough
    1
  33.  @Boris-do5rs  I am not amerikan so I dont watch amerikan news mate. Just present your proof for that 17 to one ratio. Or any proof for SU57 in Action in ukraine
    1
  34.  @Boris-do5rs  1. Cause to this very moment you refuse to give any evidence for use of SU57 in ukraine 2. You ignore the varios shotdowns of very manuverable russian planes. 3. You Mix stealth with manuvrrbility. What is it now
    1
  35.  @Boris-do5rs  BTW. Your rambling about g forces shows that you dont have any idea how AA missles work. They dont follow you around they aim and fly in an almost straight path. All sovjet fighter jets cn perform 7 g plus turns. But it didnt help them in ukraine did id
    1
  36.  @Boris-do5rs  ok again. Where is this 17 to zero comming from
    1
  37.  @Boris-do5rs  Is that so. Accourding to who?
    1
  38.  @Boris-do5rs  And again if apperently in your world the stealth Features of the SU57 work good enough. Therefore the F35 is not obsolete. In fact its the opposite
    1
  39.  @Boris-do5rs  the Su35 sure. We saw them in active combat since 2012. But to this day we never saw a definitive Action of the SU57.
    1
  40.  @Boris-do5rs  Oh wow. You changed your mind 180 degrees. First you claimed stealth and the F35 is obsolet. Now you claim those super dupa SU57 are invisible. Wow that went bad for you
    1
  41.  @Boris-do5rs  BTW every stealth plane is visible at a certain range. Its just math. RCS and distance. There is no white and Black here. There is RCS and the question how low it is. And if its low enough you can ewcape Radar. Like Amerika did in dozens of conflicts
    1
  42.  @Boris-do5rs  Ah I see. So miss spelled. You wrote SU35. So to this very day there is no confirmed use of SU57. Every single time people claime it, it was debunked. Accourding to russia itself. It has a RCS equivalent to a cruese missle. Around 0.1 sqm. And when russia claims something its much worse usually. BTW. If an awacs on Nato territory cant see somethin at the russo ukrainian border, means nothing. If its far away enough it is not detectable. If a non stealthy cruese missle flies by at 400 km, you cant see it with an awacs. You dont understand what you are talking about.
    1
  43.  @Boris-do5rs  we talked about how valuable stealth is. And you come up with a none stealth aircraft. What is your point
    1
  44.  @Boris-do5rs  but what on earth is this silly Story supposed to mean in the context. We talked about stealth my boy.
    1
  45.  @Boris-do5rs  And once ukraine got modern AA Systems they didnt anymore. Now they use glide bombs, cause they csnt penetrate ukrainian airspace with planes, anymore.
    1
  46.  @Boris-do5rs  Yes If. But what is your evidence for that. And what excactly is far. 100 km 200 km
    1
  47.  @Boris-do5rs  nope its not gone. That is the reason why stealthy cruese missles are passend rusdias airdefence. That is why almost every larger nation is building stealth planes
    1
  48. Sure
    1
  49.  @Srdjan93tl  actually ukraine is mostly flat farm Land. Also the desert was a huge benefit for the air defence in iraq
    1
  50. What is the lie here?
    1