Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Daily Mail World" channel.

  1. True but the archer is simply better
    14
  2.  @DragonSilverG  There are way more CAESAR simply because there are greater number built than the ARCHER 48 units of Archer whereas CAESAR number over 340
    12
  3. 3 years and only 1 destroyed thats a heck of a flex for the HIMARS
    10
  4.  @DragonSilverG  Again there are only 48 of Archer whereas there are over 340 Caesar Its easier to get more caesar than archer Bofors is not manufacturing juggernaut like KNDS Besides the Archer, they dont make many vehicles KNDS besides the Caesar also makes, tanks, MRAPS, IFV, AFV and other various combat and artillery vehicles so they can make caesars faster than Bofors makes Archers its simple math
    9
  5. Ukraine needs both as Sabos are ineffective against BMPs and IFV
    9
  6. Because the Abrams isnt poorly designed Here's the rub, Russia's T-90s on down have the autoloader and ammo inside the turrent Hence when they get hit, the turrets go into orbit The Abrams ammo is located in armored boxes so even if the ammo is hit, the explosive force is directed through blow panels on the top and away from the crew Drones strikes are damaging but not as bad
    8
  7.  @KilgorSoS  Are you an !#@! The SABO works by fragmentation When the round hits heavy armor ,its starts to fracture Once it penetrates through, it hits the other side of the tank and creates fragmentation where the superheated pieces of the SABO shred everything inside BMPs armor is no where as thick as a tank hence why HEAT rounds are used
    4
  8.  @KilgorSoS  Sorry your time on Call of Duty doesnt count Sabots are not high high velocity needle Actually personnel who served would refer it as kinetic energy penetrator or KE round Lastly the term Cavalry does not solely refer to armor Cavalry covers a massive umbrella from aviation to to national guard units just one of those things
    4
  9.  @MockinGlobes  Hence why HEAT rounds are better against AFV / IFV With SABO, the gunner has to precisely aim at where they think will disable the AFV/IFV or where they think the crew is whereas aiming an HEAT round is much easier Then also consider that if you do mobility kill the AFV/IFV, it still may have enough back up power to a missile off The rationale for the AMP/XM1147 One round able to to replace HEAT, MPAT, CAN and OR rounds I would still keep the HEAT but definitely replace the MPAT, CAN and OR with AMP
    4
  10.  @FerDzone205  Yes the drone destroyed the Abrams but compared to Russian tanks, the Abrams and other western tanks are in one piece not with their turrets in orbit
    3
  11.  @attilamarics3374  Copium is strong with this one Hostomel airport did happen and its exactly why Russia failed miserably The plan was simple, capture the airport, land Il-76s full of reinforcements and armor and blitzkrieg Kyiv If it had worked, Kyiv would fallen quickly and Russia would easily gained control of Ukraine However didnt work The critical factor is that Ukraine heeded the US warnings and did garrison additional forces which allowed Ukraine to effectively deny usage of the airport combined with the presence of mobile air defense and MANPADS, Russia's attack had to shift from capture to asset denial
    3
  12. Russia forces pulled out because Ukraine forces has gotten longer and better range weapons
    3
  13. Yeah, no one buying that party line, Ukraine forces drove them out
    3
  14. They are losing tactically but winning strategically
    3
  15.  @aa-ron6718  The AMP isnt quite ready but given that USMC divested all their tanks and Army adsorbed all of USMC assets and ammo its most likely they have a massive surplus of 120mm rounds so Ukraine will likely get HEAT, plus a few others
    3
  16.  @KilgorSoS  Again you claim cavalry however cavalry is not solely armor its covers a wide range of things their water boy
    3
  17. The US CVNs and the UK carriers are design very differently
    2
  18. is that a supportable goal
    2
  19. Even though the US is gave Ukraine the Block 1 ATACMS , they still carry the very lethal BLU-97 payload which as you can see by the video can easy erase whole bases
    2
  20. Your copium is hilarious
    2
  21.  @JZ094  its called quality not quantity Ukraine forces does not need to destroy every piece of Russian equipment, they only need to target what Russian forces need as operational force Fuel trucks, munition depot, communication assets, supplies, water and food No operational force can operate without those
    2
  22.  @riv4lm4n  There is that fact but in Ukraine , its different story Ukraine has was sent 49 CAESAR and 10 have been destroyed so far Next numerous system is the PZh-2000 with 39 but only 1 destroyed but maintenance has been problem for it Even finely made German engineering needs TLC The CAESAR is simply the easiest to get right now
    2
  23. Those capabilities are in the pipe line still with the SPEAR-3 program The UK could short cut by buying GBU-53 and SIAW but that would affect the SPEAR-3 program
    2
  24. Well Ukraine doesnt need armor on the ground, they need aircraft putting steel on target from hundreds of miles away If Harris had won, Ukraine would have likely gotten JASSM-A and JASSM-B cruise missiles which would have ended things in Ukraine While UK and France stock of Storm Shadows is limited, the US stock of JASSMs is over 7000 missiles and giving Ukraine 500 wouldnt have been hard to do The JASSM-B range is 600 miles and the US has a lot early circa 2002 missiles they wouldnt have mind to part with A 600 mile highly accurate cruise missile endless targets for Ukraine to chose from
    2
  25. The UK would have to build a completely new reactor up from scratch which is very expensive and would greatly increase the cost They were considering but EMALS wasnt mature enough for them to take the risk
    2
  26.  @Emerald_2906  Thats kinda impossible as the USAF coined tank plinking in Iraq where USAF strike aircraft were shredding Iraqi tanks with 500lbs bombs
    1
  27.  @attilamarics3374  There is no source there kiddo Russia attacking Hostomel Airport as well as well other bases in the area is exactly the same thing that US would have done hence why warned Ukraine where Russia would likely strike You are forgetting that siege of Kyiv failed because without an airbridge to reinforce their forces, their seige burned out So to save face, they changed their objectives and here we are 3 years later
    1
  28. And thats a system not operating at max capability Flex
    1
  29.  @Carisco  Tactically and Strategically, Yes they are its been 4 months and how close is Russia to capturing the entire country ? they are not. They are still bogged down in Eastern Ukraine Considering Russia's claim as superpower, this should have been over months ago but Russia is struggling to make gains The US spent a fortunate developing its conventional capabilities while Russia half assed it In Syria 2015, Russia was boasting thats SVP-24 was as capable as US JDAMs and PAVEWAYs but at a fraction of the cost Russian forces aircraft losses in Syria over 5 years was 26 aircraft In Ukraine, 60 aviation losses over 4 months No boasting now
    1
  30.  @allrpg10  That before the West sanctioned everything going to Russia All Russia can do at this point is retro fit old tanks
    1
  31. True FPV drones are cheap and effective but how many drones does it take to be effective The Javelin is immune to most countermeasures while FPVs are not FPV drones require precise aiming to strike vital points , the Javelin not so much Despite FPV claims, the ATGM market is very much unaffected
    1
  32. its not It just means that the next generation of tanks will have better protection against drones
    1
  33. It pure stupidity that Russian forces wouldnt destroy it so Ukraine wouldnt able to capture it
    1
  34. The tanks in Moscow is just's Putin's ego and propaganda Lets go by the numbers Russia has claimed 7 Abrams destroyed Yet they have lost over 100 T-90s models The Russian navy has lost one 1 cruiser and attack sub totaling to 1 billion The Russian air force has lost 60 KA-50. 11 Su-30SM, 26 Su-34 , 7 Su-35, 2 Tu-22M3 , 3 IL-22 and 2 A-50s The Russian army is losing S-300 and S-400 sites at steadily increasing rate These represent Russia's latest as well strategic assets Russia could win Ukraine tomorrow but the fact that in 3 years , Ukraine cost them this much of their latest as well strategic assets is beyond embarrassing Here's another fun fact, the US has sent Ukraine various Anti-jam measures for JDAMs and none has worked effectively so Ukraine is getting Home on Jam Seeker for the JDAM as well SDBs Without EW jamming GPS, Putin wont have time to parade war trophies
    1
  35. That was definitely the salami slicer in action Terrorist though they could hide in civilian cites they though wrong I wonder if they are going make variant similar to the CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon (PAW) which uses metal rods
    1
  36. The simple answer is that the T-90 should have never allowed an IFV with high rate of fire autocannon get that close to it
    1
  37.  @Teutathis  production still very much a stand still
    1
  38. @ If they can score a contract with the US army or Marine Corps, then cost wouldnt be a problem The US Army alone has 1500 plus M109 howitzers that need replacement Given the vulnerability of towed systems there is market for an addition 1000 units to replace the M777s in the Army and USMC
    1
  39.  @stitch77100  Wrong on all counts The Brutus is outgrowth of AM General's Hawkeye 105mm. They pitched the Hawkeye as possible replacement for the M119 towed howitzer They continued their work and developed the Brutus as continuation of that program and the first Brutus was shown in 2018 as possible replacement for towed M777s The shoot off between the CAESAR, Brutus and others didnt occur till 2021 however Ukraine is why the Army decided to stop and reevaluate the program Ultimately down selection to either the Archer or the RCH-155 as both systems are completely self contained and have higher rate of fire as they are fully automated and can rapidly relocate
    1
  40.  @Sunshrine2  yawn
    1
  41.  @Alloy682  BMP's armor isnt thick enough to create spall Newer BMPs have thicker ERA armor but It makes more sense to preserve the sabo for tanks and use HEAT against everything else
    1
  42.  @4T3hM4kr0n  Thats 25mm , so it doesnt take much for it to spall
    1
  43.  @4T3hM4kr0n  The newer BMPs have ERA plates nothing thick enough for spall a from 120mm
    1
  44.  @Optimusprime56241  cope harder
    1
  45.  @4T3hM4kr0n  Thats why HEAT so much simpler
    1
  46.  @gabehorn1001  Wrong wrong and wrong CVNs carry nearly 4 million gallons of fuel which is a mix of aviation fuel for aircraft and marine fuel for its escorts. A Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is a carrier plus 4 escorts, 1 sub and one resupply ship The CVN has enough fuel and supplies to resupply the entire fleet if needed Name one time someone actually scored a hit on CVN
    1
  47.  @gabehorn1001  Carriers are supposed vulnerable yet China is building both conventional and nuclear. India has plans for nuclear carrier. France is working on the PANG also nuclear The countries that are building conventional carriers either dont have reactor technology or wont due to cost Effectively all the major players are still building carriers despite so called claims of them being vulnerable to supposed attack. Lets look at the QE short comings thanks to cost less The CVN is protected by 2 ESSM launchers and 2 RAMs plus 3 CIWS whereas the QE class only has 3 CIWS for self defense The Ford class radars designed work with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) allow for seamless communication and integrated fire control with its escorts and aircraft whereas the QE class ? The QE is plans for the 50kW Dragonfire laser whereas the laser weapons planned for the Ford are the same 150kw-600kW planned for the DDGX as the Ford's reactors can easily support sustained 600kW shots thanks its 700 MW reactors plus can support even 1 MW weapons whereas the QE IEP only generates 119 MW lets look at air wing No organic , EW or tanker, has rely solely on land based assets. its only AWACS is helicopter AWACS which is vastly inferior as its the Crownest AWACS cant go higher than 15K feet whereas the E-2D operates at 25K feet with ease FYI the reactor has walls of shielding and protection unlike Russia ships. The father of the nuclear navy, Hyman G. Rickover ran the USN nuclear reactor program for decades and had zero incidents thanks stringent rules regarding construction and operation. The odds of enemy successfully striking the reactor are 1 in million Oh yes, porting a ship and it being stationary for how many hours is not vulnerably I say with sarcasm
    1
  48. Carriers are supposed vulnerable yet China is building both conventional and nuclear. India has plans for nuclear carrier. France is working on the PANG also nuclear The countries that are building conventional carriers either dont have reactor technology or wont due to cost Effectively all the major players are still building carriers despite so called claims of them being vulnerable to supposed attack. Lets look at the QE short comings thanks to cost less The CVN is protected by 2 ESSM launchers and 2 RAMs plus 3 CIWS whereas the QE class only has 3 CIWS for self defense The Ford class radars designed work with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) allow for seamless communication and integrated fire control with its escorts and aircraft whereas the QE class ? The QE is plans for the 50kW Dragonfire laser whereas the laser weapons planned for the Ford are the same 150kw-600kW planned for the DDGX as the Ford's reactors can easily support sustained 600kW shots thanks its 700 MW reactors plus can support even 1 MW weapons whereas the QE IEP only generates 119 MW lets look at air wing No organic , EW or tanker, has rely solely on land based assets. its only AWACS is helicopter AWACS which is vastly inferior as its the Crownest AWACS cant go higher than 15K feet whereas the E-2D operates at 25K feet with ease FYI the reactor has walls of shielding and protection unlike Russia ships. The father of the nuclear navy, Hyman G. Rickover ran the USN nuclear reactor program for decades and had zero incidents thanks stringent rules regarding construction and operation. The odds of enemy successfully striking the reactor are 1 in million Oh yes, porting a ship and it being stationary for how many hours is not vulnerably I say with sarcasm
    1