Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

if the US were in the fight, this war would have been over in the first 6months.
1
that's about leadership, not combined arms. If you try to execute a combined arms attack that way, you'll get everyon killed.
1
effective? at getting Russians killed...
1
is this going to be a 2 part series? Part 2: 2022-present
1
@oknevals oh, didn't know silence was a requisite for prior service. I guess you should tell the hundreds of youtube channels run by combat vets to shut the hell up then. They talk far more than I do. But, if you think you're smarter, go ahead and try to prove I'm wrong and see how far you get. When you have no argument you resort to insults, attempts at shaming, etc. Prove to me your infinite wisdom regarding all things combat. What is your combat experience from which you're drawing upon?
1
@HEMI345S feel free to point out anything I said that was untrue. but it's really that you're just jealous. you're ego took a hit. All you have are insults.
1
look at the SHEAR variety of armored vehicles Russia brought into Ukraine in 2022, a logistical nightmare servicing so many different types and variations.
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
@rosomak8244 500 ukrainaian aircraft? you know Ukraine never had that any aircraft, right? If Ukraine had 500 aircraft, they'd be the 4th largest military power on earth. Notice how many Russian aircraft have been shot down. Tu-22 Multiple AWACS Su-35 Su-30 A LOT of Su-34 Su-25 Ka-50 cargo planes etc. Russia is even too afraid to fly the Su-57 over Ukraine. NATO would decimate Russia's entire air arm within 2weeks.
1
@sighsgkj Drones =/= combined arms the drones are not coordinating attacks, they are largely operating independently. Few militaries other than the US can conduct true combined arms warfare today. Most militaries aren't big enough, or don't train enough, or lack real-world combat experience application. If Ukraine could do true combined arms warfare, they'd have breached Russian defenses a year ago. But they have thus far failed to demonstrated combined arms coordination in this war.
1
@gae_wead_dad_6914 "Every infantryman stays the fuck away from tanks in Ukraine. Because once that things on the field - it's gonna blow up in 10 minutes" that wouldn't happen if they had combined arms operations. I'm a combat vet that specializes in this kind of warfare.
1
@gae_wead_dad_6914 "Ah yes, because Iraq didn't have minefields 10km deep in 1991" Iraq didn't have 10km deep minefields in 1991
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
Enemy at the Gates actually shows the Stukas missing a lot, and most hits coming from machine gun and cannon fire. So, sometimes Hollywood does a good job.
1
Public and journalists think the tank is obsolete due to the use of old tank designs, and lack of proper tactics and leadership and coordination by the Russians. Just because the Russians have proven they suck at tank warfare (losing large numbers of tanks in WW2, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya, Ukraine), doesn't mean everyone else is that bad at it.
1
@thethirdman225 Even the Russians in WW2 preferred the M4 over the T-34. T34 was cramped, had terrible vision and optics, and was not that good overall. M4 was better period. And when operated by superior trained personnel, was even more so superior to the T-34..
1
@piotrd.4850 drones started out as flying IEDs, all the way back to WWI and WWII
1
@pilotmanpaul right, as If we're supposed to believe Russia isn't really trying to win, and if only they openly declared war it would magically be different. Russia has openly been at war with Ukraine for a while now, and the only people too stupid to realize it are the Russian citizens and propagandists. Russia lacks the means to make this a multifront war. they lack the personnel, equipment, and logistics to handle multiple fronts. And do tell which additional fronts would Russia open? Would Russia attack a NATO nation next?
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
@nagantm441 typical troll. no actual argument, making crap up, and using ad hominem attacks when you get called out for your BS.
1
@nagantm441 Hahahaha! one of us is spitting facts, and it isn't you.
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
@cant_Comment Well, I have actual Ukrainians responding to some of my posts and agreeing with and backing up my assessments. I'm pretty sure Ukrainians dont want Russians murdering them in their homes, churches, schools, hospitals, etc. Why would anyone side with the nation that is murdering them without cause?
1
T-34? you mean how many features of the T-34 that it gets praise for in WW2 were abandoned and never used again in Russian tank design, such as its suspension, side sloped armor, etc. T-34 was a mass-produced "good enough" but otherwise garbage tank that did what it needed to do (mass production and take casualties) and nothing more .
1
Russia doesn't care about the survival of its citizens or infantry, why would they care about their tank crews?
1
@willardlong2899 And yet the Shinano was laid low by a mere submarine. She was a Yamato battleship hull.
1
@Dreachon prove it. everyone but you says otherwise, including people paid to do research on this. You are nobody with no evidence and so nobody is going to beleive you or listen to you.
1
those T-55 on teh train have no reactive armor
1