Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
55
-
19
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@aldopedroso6212 When you see what 600 B-29 can do in a fire bombing raid, and then a single bomber comes over and nearly matches it.
Imagine what 600 bombers, each carrying nukes, would do in a single night to Japan.
It helped convince the Emperor that if they continued to fight on they faced near total destruction, not just economically, but as a culture/race as a whole.
The bombs help put the nail in the coffin, and saved millions of lives from pointless destruction.
If you study the US logistical and research elements of WW2 in enough detail, you'd be surprised how methodical EVERY decision was, and how every weapon was evaluated for production. they did studies on everything. tracked data on everything they could, in every theater. it seems cold hearted, but it's just science. that's a largely ignored reason why the US is so good at war. We are methodical, competitive, and HIGHLY scientific in our approach to everything.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aldopedroso6212 "yet couldn't make a torpedo that would blow up if it hit a ship and was unlikely to hit a ship because it ran too low. Cut the crap."
the torpedo worked. But it had a design flaw. Once remedied, it worked as advertised. The issue was human fallibility. A system, especially one as large as the US WW2 effort, is going to have its proportionate share of failures and flaws. Nothing is perfect. Doesn't mean the science wasn't being done, and the data collected. They knew there was an issue due to all the reports.
"If the US HAD 600 nuke bombers, Japan would have seen more than one at a time."
why? the US weren't blood thirsty. the US held back using other devastating weapons as well, out of a sense of morality and ethics. drop only as many as needed. and yes, they were in short supply right at teh end of the war. But Japan didn't know that. Th US hoped one would be enough. Japan figured the US only had one. So the US dropped one more to prove it wasn't a fluke, and the Japanese realized they were in trouble (not realizing the US didn't have a third ready yet and were bluffing at that moment). Just because you can/could, doesn't mean you will/should. Also, each mission ran the risk of failure, and each nuke mission had multiple aircraft along, and not all made it.
"If the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed more people, a half year before did not end the war, neither would destroying the nuke cities. "
wrong. it took hundreds of B-29 to do what a single B-29 with a nuke could do. that's a force multiplier, and Japan's leaders where smarter than you and understood this concept.
""Emperor, a city was destroyed!" "Fire or explosive?" "A little bit of both. And they used one bomb." "Was it worse?" "About the same." "Well keep me informed.""
yes, but after the 2nd bomb, the Emperor surrendered. He understood. you do not.
2
-
@qblox8018 "The most stupid line in my life, "
Then why did you share it? Not sure where you got that quote from. Bringing 3rd party argument into the mix, changing the argument to suite your needs.
US didn't struggle at Normandy, they were being cautious. They broke out and reached Berlin. How long after the Normandy invasion did the US reach Berlin? remind us all? There is always give and take in war, win some, lose some, but the end result is what matters. Are you seriously going to try to claim Russia never lost ground to Germany? Are you going to claim Russia was never encircled? How many times has Russia won wars due to Weather rather than actual fighting?
"1m American soldiers versus 500k German soldiers. "
because we're not idiots. we always strive to overmatch. We actually fight to win, unlike russia who fights to spill blood.
"Just think about it"
what's to think about? the US utterly defeated Germany, all while keeping Russia alive with Lend Lease. Even Stalin backs me on this.
"And what's the point of mentioning russian war crimes in ukraine? "
because russia commits far more war crimes. and they are still doing it now. All russia knows is murder.
"U also should include ur beloved Ukraine as post Soviet country so they count as red army members back in ww2"
they are not my "beloved", they are fighting Russia and I love it.
"so they count as red army members back in ww2""
no one claimed otherwise. but it also explains why the Ukraine military sucks at offensive warfare too. they are learning, but they still suck at doing what the West excels at.
2
-
@stipebalenovic6497 " Soviets fought with the best Germany had."
never fought Rommel. Rommel fought the Allies and built the Normandy defenses.
Many top German aces slayed on the eastern front, but almost all of them that faced Western Allies were killed or suffered mental breakdowns. Even Eric Hartmann was downed a few times by Mustangs.
Germans rotated through many fronts.
Look how many tanks Rudel slayed in Russia.
"In offensive wars, after a long peace or a purge you will often have crap officers. Long defence is a bit different."
you clearly know nothing about warfare.
"Don't think because Russia today can't do anything right that the Soviets after 6 years of wars were just dummies."
oh but they are. After 6yrs they learned nothing, and in the 80yrs since they learned even less. We study the Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere to learn how Not to lose (study the russian failures and why they failed). We study Germans like Ritchthofen, Rommel, Hartmann and Galland, and American battles to learn how to Win.
"Even Soviets later were formidable and actually knew a thing or two,"
Examples? Proof?
"Iraq wars were not the norm, those are exceptions, Saddam left his flank open and that was it, and they had no air cover. "
you clearly lack understanding of military things. Saddam's forces met the US forces in battle, and had superior numbers, and got slaughtered.
They had tons of Russian aircraft including Mig25, Mig29, and more, and the most densely defended airspace on earth, so how come they got slaughtered? And F-15E killed a Mi-24 in air with a bomb for crying out loud. And an F-111 scored a maneuver kill against a superior aircraft. And Iraqis surrendered by the thousands to drones from the battleships.
Yes, Iraq wars are not the norm. It was the US in peak form at the time, against the 3rd largest tank army on earth, and the most heavily defended airspace on earth, with tons of the Best Russian equipment anyone could get, outside of Russia.
And if a country like Iraq stands no chance against the US, what chance does anyone else stand? Iraq was FAR more formidable than Ukraine even, with a larger and equally advanced air force, FAR larger tank force, FAR more air defenses. And yet Russia lost it's entire modern army in Ukraine. Even resorting to fighting with T-55 tanks and unable to fly their aircraft in Ukraine airspace. They navy is getting destroyed by a country with no navy. Their ships are being sunk in port.
"Who would win? There would be a peace negotiation and the border would be pulled in a way like we have in Korea. Everyone was pretty much done with it."
what are you talking about? Korea was not the defeat you try to claim, and if we picked it back up tomorrow, NKorea would be reunified finally with SKorea. You have no idea how badly people want to finish that fight.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaptainFrankay you're free to think what you want. and you're free to ignore me, but since you think my opinion warrants your attention....
Yes, this is a convoluted scenario. It's like a child who plays a game and keeps changing the rules every time they're about to lose. when you have to state a list of conditions as long as your arm just to setup the ridiculous hypothetical and explain to everyone the rules of the scenario, including making wild assumptions that make no logical sense.... Yeah, not going for that.
Now, had the hypothetical stuck to, "what if Nazi Germany had managed to develop the Eurofighter Typhoon and air-to-air missiles in WW2 in x-numbers, would it have mattered?". that I could go along with. It assumes the Nazi commanders are clearly in control, know how to employ the jets, are relying on existing fuel reserves, have ability to work on the jets (though manufacturing quantities can be debated in the scenario), etc. One statement and it's far more clear what is going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1