Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1. US has suffered no "losses" in Ukraine. They have "expended" weapons for their intended purpose. Restocking ammo is not the same as replacing lost infantry, tanks, and jet fighters.
    307
  2.  @jebise1126  if the ammo isn't produced anymore, it's because the weapon system is obsolete and we're just burning through legacy stockpiles. When I joined the Army after 9/11, we spent years finishing up burning through stockpiles of various obsolete munitions from WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Once it was gone we fully switched to the new stuff. Ammo is cheap and easy to build compared to the weapons themselves. And given how many Russian tanks were destroyed, and how many lacked real ERA, the T-62 and BMPs and other light armor can easily be defeated by cheap RPG-7, of which a factory in the US is the largest manufacturer, and they are very cheap and simple to make. As the war shifts, we use less and less of certain weapons. Ukraine is not using a lot of those high tech AT missiles anymore. They are using drones with simple munitions, RPGs, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, etc. HIMARS is one of their most advanced weapons being used to great effect right now. and they are simpler than a Javelin in terms of technology. Ukraine has already developed one of their own homegrown HIMARS rockets for example. They figured out how to make a variant of their own they could make themselves in Ukraine so they could fire more often. It probably isn't as good or as long ranged as the other variants, but it just has to be good enough, and mass producible.
    53
  3. I hear that something like 900k Russians have fled to Europe alone. Most of them likely to be the younger and smarter of Russia's citizens. Don't forget the negative economic fallout that will have later on.
    44
  4.  @u2beuser714  one side only had a few hundred tanks total
    24
  5. no one's buying them anymore either. Partly due to seeing how inadequate they are in a real fight. Partly because they see that the orders will never be completed/delivered by Russia any time soon.
    17
  6. Kalibr cruise missile failure rate: up to 60%
    10
  7. No one's buying Russian hardware anymore either. Partly due to seeing how inadequate they are in a real fight. Partly because they see that the orders will never be completed/delivered by Russia any time soon.
    10
  8.  @M_Jono  what are you so upset about? is reality catching up to you? finally realizing russia is not the great country they claimed to be? Some of us have known this for decades. It's not hard to see when you study history, know combat, and know engineering/science.
    5
  9. and their army isn't actually modern by western standards, and is no longer large.
    4
  10. question is, how many tanks were lost in all of WW2? And how many has Russia lost in Ukraine?
    4
  11.  @orlock20  some nuclear bombs are man portable, a biplane could easily carry one.
    3
  12.  @eikonise  you got it
    3
  13. Russia lacks funding details, because then they wouldn't have the same levels of corruption. Also, if Russia was transparent about their defense budgets, the rest of the world would have learned decades ago how pathetic its military really was.
    3
  14.  @helio2942  If you have a visa, and the war starts and you don't want to get sucked into it, you leave while you can. Yes, over 1mil ukrainians are being held in camps in siberia. And some actually did want to go to russia. why russia didn't just offer those people citizenship at the border rather than invading ukraine proves the truth of what is going on here and everyone knows it.
    3
  15.  @helio2942  "Ah you are a spam bot." Spam bots don't post primary comments, mostly just responses. Also, how convenient of you to dismiss everything when you realize you have no other argument to make. But let's assume I am a spam bot for a moment, wouldn't that make a spam bot smarter than you?
    3
  16.  @helio2942  it's called Google, pretty sure you know how to use it. but some people are not very capable. others just will do everything in their power to avoid being wrong, including delaying, wasting more time and effort to argue than it would have to check it, etc.
    3
  17. in a war like Ukraine, the US would not be losing men and material at anything close to teh rate Russia is. Also, averaging Russian tank losses over the entire war so far is not fair. They are using/losing far fewer tanks these days. But they were losing tanks are alarming rates in teh first month. A lot has changed. The US would never have done so poorly in Ukraine in Russia's place. US can train up reservists and others with a lot less training time than you think in the event of a full scale war. Don't forget the ability of US militia/citizens to bring their own arms, body armor, etc. to the fight.
    2
  18.  @AbuBakr-gm6bf  oh, they are hitting targets for sure. But not every day (6 months of firing Kalibr missiles and Russia would have none left). But they are hitting targets less than 40% of the time. We have radar and satellites tracking every missile they fire into Ukraine and so people with sufficient clearance can see the data and they all say it's about 60% failure rate of Russian missiles.
    2
  19.  @vice.nor.virtue  we were using M2 machine guns from B-17s in Iraq and Afghanistan. the old wooden handles were cracking, but had b-17s engraved in them. They gave us new plastic handles for them, and the guys all kept the original B-17 handles. We used CompB explosives for training, and saved the C4 for the final tests. We still had M60s and ammo from Vietnam for them. And it's true that they are still handing out purple hearts from WW2 (they made millions in preparation for the invasion of Japan). We kept finding live M4 Sherman rounds during training and we'd have to destroy them by blowing them up. etc. It was interesting using stuff you knew was older than our parents.
    2
  20. the idea of movement warfare is alive today, Ukraine doesn't change that. Ukraine only proves that some nations are not capable of conducting maneuver warfare or capable of achieving air dominance, that is all.
    2
  21. pretty embarrassing when you need long range bombers, just to get across your own country to attack a smaller country You invaded, because your bombers aren't safe deep inside your own borders.
    2
  22. "US has over 100 types of vehicles" Totally ignoring the fact most of them are just variations of less than 10 major platforms that can share parts and makes logistics easier that the cluster that Russia is using in Ukraine.
    2
  23. what good is a 200 mile range if you have to get within 30 miles to detect your target? Does 200 miles mean Max range, is that a range at which your kill probability is less than 10%? 20%? Just stating a range doesn't mean much without further context.
    1
  24. hard to protect the turret ring, even from the side
    1
  25. MRAP designs existed in WW2 as well
    1
  26. don't forget the South African Pookie that evolved into the Meerkat and Husky VMMDs.
    1
  27. think Ukraine also just expended much of what ammo they had
    1
  28. Was literally just thinking about this today. China on the rise, and no one seems to take Russia seriously anymore (except countries in eastern Europe). It's US and western allies vs China now.
    1
  29. Russia's air force was never capable and experienced. When you look at articles from years ago reporting on the lack of training in Russia. their equipment was in bad shape, technologically behind the west. all this was known and reported on. Many nations like Israel, France, UK, US, etc have far more experienced and equipped air forces.
    1
  30. 8:15 something wrong with the left engine.
    1
  31. those Russian glide bombs have no guidance.
    1
  32. Russia/Soviet Union: kicked its own butt in WW1 Soviet Union: curb stomped in WW2 by Germany (24mil dead), and only survived due to Lend Lease and US/UK easing pressure by opening numerous additional fronts. Soviet Union: got it's butt kicked in Chechnya Soviet Union: got its butt kicked in Afghanistan Russia: got its butt kicked in Ukraine and demoted from second largest military in the world to a joke that couldn't defeat a low-tier enemy
    1
  33. Shooting at extreme range with low probability of hit, makes you maneuver, but not enough to loose. Now, you've expended a heavy weapon needlessly (and you can carry fewer of them because they are heavier).
    1
  34. lots of tanks can be defeated from a direct hit to teh side in the tracks. If there is no ERA there (many russian tanks lack it) it can pass inside the road wheels and tracks and hit the hull, which has no ERA and is not sloped. You can hit engine, fuel, crew, and ammo stores.
    1
  35. Russia has never successfully conducted a strategic bombing or interdiction air campaign.
    1
  36. Point defense weapons can't work as well in times of peace as in times of war. Could you imagine automated systems firing at every ship and aircraft that passed within range? They have to periodically be switched off, or standby, or need human intervention to fire to ensure peacetime incidents don't occur. This makes them less effective. This also means that in peacetime, a smart person could ambush an unsuspecting ship effectively. But in wartime, expecting an attack, with systems on and ready, they would work better. There are many factors at play here, surely more than i can think of, but as usual everyone oversimplifies everything and tries to make everything black and white. Heck, sometimes things just break after years of use, and it just happens to be at the most inopportune time
    1
  37. T72: sucks T90: slightly upgraded T27 T90: also sucks
    1
  38. Su-30 and Su-35 are fighters
    1
  39.  @helio2942  they fled on any travel visas they had or could get, some tried immigrating. Yes, I heard it in an article teh other day and couldn't remember the exact number they said went to Europe. But it's not hearsay, i just couldn't remember the exact number.
    1
  40.  @helio2942  your dismissing claims out of hand with out supporting evidence to refute them. you crazy dismissal without evidence is proof you cannot put up real numbers to refute mine.
    1
  41.  @helio2942  You can search the web for the articles. European countries aren't restricting Russian Visas for no reason. But you demanded evidence, and so I am reciprocating. you made no attempt to check the claim and expect me to do your research for you in a comments section. I am willing to discuss billing for an hourly rate though if you wish me to do research for you.
    1
  42.  @helio2942  So, why aren't you just laughing and ignoring it then? If you fail to verify or refute a piece of information, then you should just move on. I never asked you to research anything for me, but neither do you simply get to declare things true or false based solely upon your opinion. Try following your own advice you hypocrite.
    1
  43.  @helio2942  " There is nothing to consider true or false here " objectively false statement. either hundreds of thousands of Russians have fled russian for Europe since the Ukraine war broke out, or they haven't. "I'm just probing you", right, after getting bent out of shape over my comment, and proving yourself to be a hypocrite and failing at every turn to win your argument, you resort to declaring it a draw like some shitty rip off of Monthy Python and the Holy Grail.
    1
  44.  @helio2942  "your claim is not actually entitled to assessment at this stage." now you're just making crap up. And that is your subjective opinion, not a fact. "the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence." And since you have thus far failed to produce such evidence to teh contrary, you have failed to refute what I said through anything other than statements of your own personal opinion. "then I wised up." not in the least, you're still hear arguing.
    1
  45.  @helio2942  maybe I am speculating. but since you fail to make your case, and continue to argue, how can I know what teh hell your goal here is, other than being a troll or being unable to accept that you're wrong. I'm just here to watch you make a fool of yourself at this point. You're a complete waste of oxygen otherwise.
    1
  46.  @benghazi4216  Well, India could be a huge player on the world stage, if they stopped being a fence sitter and stopped letting themselves be bullied. There is no reason India should be buying Russian crap. Heck, they should have their own thriving aerospace industry even. But they just can't get it together.
    1
  47.  @mrmacias4217  no one of consequence. and explain when those orders will be filled when Russia can't even replace their own losses. simple logic. Why would a country give money to Russia for equipment they wont receive for years to come? It will be even more obsolete by the time they receive it than it is now.
    1
  48.  @bertrecht913  name a country of consequence that is buying their crap, and tell me when it will be delivered.
    1
  49. ​ @bertrecht913  CHina only wants russian crap to copy it. 3rd world countries. most of them are banned from buying western equipment. North korea? Iran? see a trend in your examples? And when will the next order of Russian jets and tanks to these countries be delivered? M16 platform is more used now than the AK. A fool? in what way?
    1
  50.  @zezenkop412  what's your point? Taking delivery of Su-35 in 2027 or 2033 would be like taking delivery of Mig-21s today. It's already obsolete. And 3-4yrs? it will take Russia 10yrs to rebuild their armed forces at best, assuming their country and economy even survives this conflict. Not to mention most of the circuit boards and chips in their aircraft and missiles are Western/US made.
    1