Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
946
-
64
-
51
-
48
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
38
-
37
-
31
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Exactly right, we should give them no slack and call them on their incompetence mercilessly.
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
6
-
it requires planning, coordination, communications, and everyone knowing their roles and responsibilities. Everyone has to be good enough at their respective jobs and disciplined in their execution under fire, such that everyone else can trust them to do their jobs right and on time. But more than that, it requires at least a few people in each element of the operation to have a working understanding of the bigger picture and how the other elements work and are mutually supporting.
Infantry
Tanks
Artillery
Air support
Engineers
etc.
all pieces of the puzzle have their role and timing, and some people have to understand this to ensure they do the right things at eth right time. And even harder than that, they need to know when and how to improvise when things don't go to plan. Recognizing when something has been delayed or accelerated, and understanding that you need to likewise delay or accelerate your element accordingly. Or, if an element is getting defeated, how to help them without compromising the overall mission objectives. Also, the ability to recognize when you are winning, even though it didn't go as planned, and to capitalize on that. And doing all of this, without the elements ever getting in each others' way.
6
-
6
-
@nagantm441 Russia does not have fire superiority over Ukraine. Have you not heard the phone calls from Russians, teh interviews with Russians that surrendered?
Russians were getting pounded by Drones, HIMARs, etc.
And it doesn't matter fire superiority. If they land multiple hits on us every day, doesn't matter how many we fire back, they still hit us every day. the effectiveness of enemy artillery against your position, isn't determined by how many rounds you sent back in their direction. It matters how many rounds they send your way, how often, and how effective it is. Are they hitting things? are they disrupting our operations? etc. And the fact they were able to hit us so frequently even after years of fighting should tell you something.
Yes, they lacked long range artillery, because we had radar that can detect single rounds, and can trace it back to its launcher even before it hits the ground. so the further away it was, the higher it's trajectory, the easier it was to detect and track on radar and return fire. So they were smart and moved in closer and fired low angle shots at us to stay under the radar. But they still got their rounds out on our positions. But it's still artillery. it still kills people. it still sends people heading for cover. it still damages vehicles and buildings.
Still waiting for your combat experiences with artillery.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
5
-
5
-
5
-
Wrong. I could show Ukraine how to defeat the minefields and breach, but they lack the skills and experience to execute it.
Also, NATO has access to abilities Ukraine doesn't , like air power, air assault, paratroopers, and more that changes the game if used properly and appropriately.
Ukraine lacks skill at timing and combined arms warfare, which is crucial to defeating the Russian defenses. Ukraine is proving not good at making good mathematical decisions regarding which attacks to use and when either. This is something Many nations/people are bad at, not just Ukraine. people struggle to make the tough rational call, and people struggle to play the game of: yes you'll take losses now, but you'll lose less overall if you do X now than if you delay and try something else later. People would rather bleed themselves slower and lose more in the long-run, than to take one big hit early (but overall smaller losses), but win the long-game and save more lives in the end.
Ukraine is demonstrating good strategic thinking regarding drone attacks, but not regarding ground attacks.
5
-
5
-
5
-
not really. combined arms is when infantry, tanks, artillery, air support, engineers, etc. simultaneously attack a single target in a proscribed and well timed manner to capitalize on all the strengths of each respective combat element.
Being able to have units of completely different skills and combat capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, joint o attack a single objective in teh best way possible. An infantryman typically doesn't know much about how to be a tanker, and vice versa. A typical pilot doesn't know much about mine clearing and vice versa. A typical artilleryman doesn't know much about Urban Breaching, and vice versa.
Some people in charge of each fighting element needs to have a working understanding of what the other elements do, and what aspects of the battle are critical to them, in comparison to their own element.
Intelligence happens well in advance of a combined arms operation. Jamming is often going on continuously before during and after, and many elements have their own jamming native to their individual elements. Drones spotting artillery fire is part of the artillery operation in general. Counterbattery fire is not a combined arms thing, as combined arms is offensive, and counter battery fire is defensive. Combined arms coordinates its attacks to strike the enemy targets and not letting them get of their ideal shots. If anyone is going to attempt counter battery fire, it's the enemy you're attacking with combined arms. But if you execute a real combined arms assault successfully, they'll never get to counterfire.
A better example is the artillery fires first, and walks forward as the infantry are moving into range before teh artillery even finishes firing, while the armored elements move up to support the infantry. All the while helicopters and fighters are on call to bring the heat as needed, or to strike specific enemy targets deeper behind the lines to prevent a coordinated counterattack (hitting command and control, lines of communication, bridges to cutoff reinforcements, providing air cover, etc.). Also, the engineers might move in as well to establish a needed bridgehead across a river or piece of terrain that is enroute to the objective, all while the tanks, infantry, artillery, etc. provide cover to them. Maybe even an air assault element that strikes specific target buildings once the ground elements reach a certain point in the attack. and if executed correctly, from start to finish the whole thing might last less than 1hour, or maybe take a few hours to secure all objectives.
4
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
4
-
4
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cstgraphpads2091 "Where is the evidence that they've "already burned through their T-62 stocks"?" if they still had T-62 in good enough shape to send, why are they sending T-55?
Regarding your other questions, just because AT weapons can destroy a tank, doesn't mean the tank is worthless.
What is the primary role of a tank after all? To serve as a rolling pillbox/bunker in support of infantry.
If you are on the defense against tanks, artillery, and infantry, infantry with AT weapons and artillery support is a good choice. But if you're going to attack an enemy that has those things, as you advance your own artillery may be of limited use, while the enemy can keep firing. And as you advance out of your protected defenses and push into the defenses of your enemy, you're exposed and out gunned. This is where the tank comes in, to provide support and cover for infantry, taking out machinegun nests, bunkers, infantry, other tanks, etc. This is where it starts, and it gets into more complex stuff from there. but the nature of the Ukraine conflict is such that the basics are what matters now primarily anyways.
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TotalRookie_LV doesn't matter if the turret pops off. Many tanks in history were completely destroyed or cooked off without ever losing their turrets.
what matters is how Easy it is to kill a particular tank, such as the T-55. and given it age, it is vulnerable to pretty much ANYTHING you use against it.
RPG-7, AT-4, Carl Gustav, Recoilless Rifle, NLAW, Javelin, mines, artillery, suicide drones, you name it. Ukraine will make quick and easy work of these T-55. Who cares if the turrets pop off, we care that they get destroyed.
2
-
@oknevals that's what happens when you serve in the military for years, and fight in wars for years, and one of your specialties was knowing how to defeat armor, and study all things military (tactics, strategy logistics, equipment, weapons systems, history...) for multiple decades to get as good at it as possible. And then backing that up with engineering degrees, skills and experience. i don't know everything, but the applicable info one needs to understand here is stuff I could teach a to a child and they would understand it. The basics of warfare, fundamentals, first principles, are all one really needs to focus on right now. War is complex, until you understand it well enough, and then it suddenly becomes so stupidly simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
2
-
2
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
As for fire support, what is the max barrel elevation and indirect fire range of a T-55? Now ask yourself, what is the range of precision Ukrainian artillery? How much fuel does a T-55 need compared to towed artillery? How accurate is the T-55 as artillery? What artillery targeting systems does teh T-55 come equipped with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
Fire support? what is the max barrel elevation and indirect fire range of a T-55? Now ask yourself, what is the range of precision Ukrainian artillery? How much fuel does a T-55 need compared to towed artillery? How accurate is the T-55 as artillery? What artillery targeting systems does teh T-55 come equipped with?
1
-
@elKarlo The West knows exactly how to breach the Russian defenses, just becasue we fought in OIF/OEF for 20yrs, doesn't mean we have forgot everything else in the meantime. I fought in both OIF and OEF and can easily penetrate Russian lines. I was taught to fight the Russians in Europe before I ever fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some things about warfare never change, regardless of the type of enemy you face. A major aspect of Iraq was dealing with mines, boobytraps, etc. In Afghanistan there were tons of leftover Russian minefields to clear as well. Skills and knowledge that translates well to Ukraine.
You're learning the wrong lessons from Ukraine, because you think the US and others can't do better. In reality, the US anticipated everything happening in Ukraine decades ago. The return of trench warfare due to drones and precision weapons was anticipated. The Pentagon released a whole study on it. US has been using camera-guided Kamikaze drones in actual combat successfully since WW2.
The war in Ukraine is the fight most guys I served with in combat dreamed of fighting. A standup fight. We'd go on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan and get frustrated when the enemy wouldn't attack us, because we wanted to fight. We were professional soldiers, volunteers, we went to fight. And we continued studying all aspects of warfare even during/between/before/after deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
US could penetrate Russian lines with ease.
1
-
@zix_zix_zix nope, I'm accounting for the weather. Ukraine made th mistake of giving Russia the winter when they had the momentum in the first year. now they are paying for it. Winters where I live are far more brutal and equally muddy as Ukraine. I know full well what their climate and weather is like.
"and Russia has a very strong air defense; they possess the largest number of SAMs in the world.. "
Iraq had the most heavily defended airspace on planet earth in 1991. US took it all down in a matter of days with technology and capabilities generations older than what we have today. Meanwhile, Russia is still using technology from the 1960s and 1980s. They've produced nothing new of consequence since the fall of the Soviet Union in terms of military technology or hardware.
"I don't see any proof of that. I believe that Ukrainians have performed exceptionally well, against a superior enemy, so far. "
they have done extremely well against Russia. Even I initially thought they stood no chance, until teh invasion actually began. Before the first day was up, I already knew Russia was going to fail badly, based on what I was seeing.
But, that doesn't change the fact that since the winter of the first year, Ukraine has failed to gain meaningful ground. They had the initiative, and they gave it back to Russia. They are afraid, they don't take the right risks. They lack confidence, and they try to do too much at once rather than focus their efforts on the killing blow. Crimea should have been retaken by now. But it requires a level of leadership they are lacking still.
Russia has no concept of grand strategy. They suck at logistics and have never struck strategically critical targets in Ukraine since day one. Ukraine has surprised Russia because they are more westernized and motivated to fight and innovate and adapt. But Ukraine still suffers from decades of being part of the Soviet Union none the less. It will take many years to fully overcome that.
1
-
@checkdestroy well, like it or not, ALL countries have to do that. US had to produce results in WW2 to keep public support and continue to be able to fund the war. People were tired of it by 1944. If you study military history enough, eventually you'll see even ancient wars were managed this way. without public support for the war, to send people and to spend money and to raise funds, you can't fight a war. And if Ukraine wants to win and continue to get handed our taxpaying dollars, we need to know they can actually win.
"The US needs to give Ukraine what they want and then stfu."
no, that's not how it works. If Ukraine thinks they can just demand/expect things, then I dare them to try invade the US and MAKE us. I support the Ukrainians, and want them to win, but with that attitude I'd be obliged to refuse to help as a matter of principle and duty. The moment you tell Americans what to do, you're done. You can ask nicely, and convince us to help, but if you DEMAND it, I will be forced to retract my support. I don't tolerate threats, I don't negotiate with terrorists and criminals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iMost067 I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagantm441 What are you even talking about?
Artillery is artillery. yes, it's not a massive barrage. but that's just it, the US doesn't just sit back and let enemies fire at it with impunity.
But we had Artillery, Rockets, Mortars, and even RPGs and Recoilless Rifle rounds lobbed at us as artillery, falling all around our TOC, Tents, and motor pool daily overseas.
So, tell me in detail how you think it's not comparable, and do share your personal combat experiences with artillery while you're at it, so that we can all appreciate where you're coming from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagantm441 no, my experience helps me put into context what I'm seeing, and analyze the differences, and know how to win.
but you've not said anything of value, failed to defend your arguments (the few you've attempted to make), and proven you have Zero experience to draw upon to form your opinions other than watching videos, and reading what others say.
Keep trying though, you're bound to learn something. Just find it odd you keep saying you're done, but yet you're still here. means your word isn't worth anything either, as you don't follow through, making it impossible for a person to trust you to do anything you say you will.
1
-
@Stratigoz When you're using lots of high-precision munitions to conduct daily surgical strikes for years on end, it does consume stockpiles. (don't forget Syria)
And if the US were to fight in a war such as Ukraine, yes, we'd consume precision weapons at a much faster rate, but so too would the enemy run out of high value targets like Tanks, SAMs, etc at a much faster rate than they could replace them. Munitions are cheaper and easier, and faster to replenish than tanks, ships, aircraft, SAMs, etc. And the US has been able to switch to using much smaller munitions due to the high precision. Smaller means more can be produced at higher volumes, lower cost, and faster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1