Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1.  @goran77ish  Maintenance costs. The stealth technology of the F-22 is maintenance intensive and expensive, but newer planes have more affordable and more resilient stealth coatings. F-22 was first of its kind, so much of the tech was 1st gen and will have issues compared to newer stealth fighters that benefit from the lessons learned. I hate to see it go so soon, but I understand the logistics and engineering perspective of it.
    55
  2. US would have won with ease. Russia had few good aircraft to deal with strategic bombing, no viable jets yet, would have lost lend lease, would have lost their factories and some fuel resources, and faced a superior force to the Germans (and they lost 24mil fighting Germany, they'd lose far more against the US).
    19
  3. CCP has not leap frogged the US. they are so far behind technologically, it's ridiculous to even suggest that. and this is no fighter. it's a bomber.
    10
  4. Park it in critical terrain before it runs out of gas. At that point it is unstoppable until the enemy is defeated, retreats, or the tank runs out of ammo.
    9
  5. in the last few months alone they've lost a few more ships, two A-50, and something like 13 Su-34/35. they are not keeping up. and what about pilots? Many of these airplanes, such as the A-50, haven't been produced for decades.
    9
  6.  @bronco5334  probably because stealth is part of the training. Also, these aren't training aircraft. While training may occur in them, they are war machines and need to be kept at a ready state. A training mission is really nothing more than an actual mission with no contact with the enemy. But to train for the real thing, you need your stealth. If the pilots just need stick time, they can use simulators and T-38.
    8
  7. ukraine doesn't have nukes
    7
  8. they didn't catch up. but they gained ground quickly through stealing and copying and effective espionage.
    7
  9. doesn't international salvage laws allow US to claim it immediately after the crash?
    7
  10.  @viper2148  exactly. Rafale, Typhoon, F-35, F-16, Gripen, etc. Not to mention all the other 4th gen aircraft still in service or being offered that are better aircraft. Mirages, F-15, and more. The airspace is getting dangerous for second rate aircraft, even for many 4th gen designs.
    6
  11. and don't forget the firebombing would have continued, killing far more than the nukes did. But analysis suggests Japan might have surrendered by the end of Dec 1945 even without the nukes.
    6
  12. It was estimated that the Japanese may have surrendered in Dec 1945 even without using the nukes. But by then, many more would have died than were killed by the nukes.
    5
  13. This ignores so many other factors. No IFR and GPS navigation. VFR flying only. WW2 planes did have chaff capability, not likely to be used though. Who would command the jets? The Nazi commanders? or the Typhoon commanders? Why would the modern Luftwaffe fight For the Nazis? Would they fight against the Nazis? If they didn't time warp with their equipment, how long would it take to figure out how all the equipment worked, and develop correct tactics for effective employment (think air to air with missiles in Vietnam before Top Gun was started)? What about fuel? These modern jets and helos burn tons of fuel, which Germany did not have much of. The impact these jets would have on fuel reserves of the entirety of the Luftwaffe would be critical. Lack of ability to produce any spare parts and materials of any kind. Even seemingly minor AAA damage (shrapnel, stray/lucky bullets) to the jets would take their advantages (radar, sensors, flight computers, engines) out of action with no way to repair them.
    4
  14. more like they needed 3 engines due to the fact their engines are underpowered still. it's a small bomber.
    4
  15. F-36 kingsnake concept..... seems many felt the F-16XL was a worthy design.
    4
  16. don't forget the consumption of fuel by those jets and helicopters.
    4
  17. trade has been protected by the US. without a strong US navy, more wars will occur,and less safe trade will occur.
    4
  18.  @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
  19.  @qblox8018  the red army wasn't unstoppable. the US/UK/Canada and others finally made landfall in France and made Germany unable to hold teh line on 3 fronts. While the US held down multiple advancing fronts against Germany, Russia struggled to reach Berlin despite having more manpower and years longer to do it than the US. and the US casualties were incredibly low while doing it. Russia only held on as long as they did due to the US, and still were only able to advance after the US opened multiple new fronts against Germany. They never could have done it by themselves. And now you resort to making excuses. Germany killed very few of the 24mil Russians in acts of war crimes. How many war crimes did Russia commit? How many war crimes has Russia committed in Ukraine?
    4
  20.  @stephenfritz7493  No, someone got a picture of a tailless 6th gen fighter (or a mockup of one), getting ready for radar testing
    3
  21.  @duckduckov4362  you seriously comparing what Hitler attacked with, and his many blunders, with what the US would have brought to bare in 1945?
    3
  22.  @bronco5334  What "feel" do you need to practice? Is it pilot proficiency you're worried about? G-force resistance training? these can be accomplished between the T-38 and simulators. F-22s and such are fly by wire. what feel is there? this is not old school stick and rudder flying by the seat of your pants anymore. F-22 and F-35 pilots fly there aircraft as much as a kid with a quadcopter drone flies their drone. Some amount of "feel" is there, but this sort of thing can be practiced in the T-38 and simulators. You need to specify clearly what training can't be done in anything except an F-22 airframe.
    2
  23. it can still shoot. just get it parked on critical terrain before it runs out.
    2
  24.  @Chadmeleon  yes, they are copying still, and using propaganda to try to bluff and lie about what they have. they have to cope and compensate for being far behind technologically and in terms of quality. China still can't even produce a jet engine that matches the Russians, and the Russians are still decades behind the US.
    2
  25.  @josephshields2922  which is ironic, given that MacArthur earned a reputation for being trigger happy with nukes.
    2
  26. the Japanese naval and air arms were all but useless against a US invasion.
    2
  27. but they lose troops at a lower rate too. if Ukraine loses troops at less than 1:3, Russia will run out first.
    2
  28.  @chrisjfhelep5095  learn to read. you clearly did not read what I wrote, nor did you comprehend its meaning. Education must be pretty poor in Communist Russia. Learn how to do math.
    2
  29. Low flying modern jets are very vulnerable to very basic ground fire. We lost multiple in the Iraq wars and Vietnam to WW2 tech level AAA.
    2
  30. the booster would also interfere with the missile coming off the rail during air launch.
    2
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34. 6th gen has no "design profile". it's a 5th gen prototype. China still can't create a competitive 5th gen, they aren't ready for a 6thgen yet.
    1
  35.  @xyzaero  the CCP has 5th gen J20, but they are still not up to par with teh F-22 by a long shot. The US has already put into operational service tens of 5th gen aircraft, and 1 6th gen. No other country even comes close. and that doesn't even count all the stealth prototypes.
    1
  36.  @xyzaero  "the US doesn’t have a single operational overt 6th gen fighter" neither does China. but the US has teh B-21, as well as numerous operation unmanned tailless stealth drones in combat and noncombat roles, with more currently flying and in development that aren't yet operational. "You also know nothing about how the F-22 and J-20 compare, since both platforms are highly secretive!" the only thing secret is their stealth and electronics. but we've gotten glimpses inside the J-20 cockpit and it's pathetic. it's more like a 1970s F-15C cockpit. But regarding the engines, design, performance, etc. we can calculate a LOT of what the F-22 and J-20 are capable of. it's basic physics and engineering. You can't violate the laws of physics (aircraft design and performance). But the US had a chance to radar scan the J-20 and they are on record stating the US military is "not worried" about the J-20. and it comes down to far more than jus tteh airplane itself as well.
    1
  37.  @bronco5334  They don't need to, they can just fly operational missions. if they don't meet any bad guys, they can just put "training" in the comments instead.
    1
  38. hard not to, given how many stealth aircraft the US has developed and fielded already. So many designs have already been tried already. And China excels at copying, just like Russia. But this thing has an overall unique design.
    1
  39.  @alexbayer2365  Russia cannot hold an election in a foreign territory, nor enforce that election against the will of the nation in charge.
    1
  40.  @Henry_the_Eighth_  that's why you're here on youtube, to learn from others.
    1
  41. they need to reach the coast north of Crimea to win
    1
  42.  @kobehuyge955  I did pay attention, but when you have to selectively chose what minute things do and don't get time warped in order to cherry pick what you want to happen, it makes the scenario utterly ridiculous and childish. Just saying, "they would find themselves helping the Nazis" isn't good enough. Why would they? They know history and have different sensibilities. Pretty sure each airbase doesn't have enough fuel to sustain the kind of operations being discussed here, but maybe I'm wrong. Modern logistics doesn't favor major stockpiles though. A few days of operations wouldn't be sufficient to turn the tide. I also mentioned IFR operations, discussion of who was dictating tactics and held ultimate authority over the jets' use. Nazi high command would see mysterious unknown junior officers dictating battle plans and operations as a threat to themselves. There are other factors as well. This scenario is of the "why even bother considering it?" type.
    1
  43.  @CaptainFrankay  Nope, not the way he set it up I can't. If he'd created less convoluted conditions i could have. But this is just stupid.
    1
  44.  @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
  45. no, this video was overly optimistic in many ways even.
    1
  46. Don't forget navigation in jet fighters is severely limited without IFR capability and GPS nav. Flying at night with dumb bombs and old school navigation wont be improved much by NVGs. AAA guns at altitude may see marginal improvements. Which computers would you be using? stripping flight computers from the jets? And who has the computer hardware and software skills in the Luftwaffe at the airbase to repurpose a dedicated computer like that in time to do that sort of thing? Technology, out of time, lacking modern tech support and logistics, navigation, internet, manufacturing to make parts, and operating on limited fuel reserves with thirsty jets would be far less effective than people want to believe. It would help, make a painful impact on the allies, but not stop the offensive.
    1
  47. A liberal got the US into Vietnam (LBJ). And Syria, and Egypt, and Libya, and Ukraine (Obama, Biden, Hillary).
    1
  48.  @ometec  Lyndon Johnson, who inhereted the Presidency after JFK was assasinated, got the US involved to win election. He lacked the war record of JFK, Eisenhower, and others. But a war helps win elections for some reason in the US. JFK had intended to stay out of it. small groups of advisors were present as early as 1955, but US involvement in teh war didn't begin until 1965.
    1
  49.  @TheCrnic  good point. kerosene lamps, kerosene is almost the same as diesel and useable as well, but wasn't discovered until a few decades later. I wonder if whale oil works.
    1
  50.  @troutstalker7855  yes, Chinese worshipers drink teh CCP propaganda kool aid.
    1