Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

Pilots matter more than planes. Russia has a large air fleet but not enough pilots. Can take years to properly train a pilot on these modern platforms, and montha at the bare minimum.
12
Honestly wish Russia didn't have nuclear weapons as a Gulf War 2.0 scenario could have ended this war well over a year ago. Wouldn't even need to invade Russia itself. Seeing how prop driven drones can penetrate so far into Russian airspace the USAF would have a field day.
6
For me I'd aim for the troop carrying vehicles, then worry about the turtles after the fact. What good is reaching the enemy trench if no soldiers are there to take advantage of the breach?
6
WWII Russia was losing an average of 60-100 tanks per day, and actual tanks, not assault guns and other armor vehicles. At the peek, ie worst of it for Russia they were losing 600+ a day during Operation Barbarossa, mostly abandoned though. TIKhistory's videos on Stalingrad paint a pretty hefty picture on loses during a 1942 campaign, and armored loses were quite high during offensives. Tanks were not invincible even back then. I think the issue is quantity of armor just isn't available to conduct similar WWII style offensives. A Tank Brigade isn't a Tank Division. If a tank brigade took the amount of loses a Division from WWII would of taken before breaking a line the Brigade wouldn't have any tanks left to exploit the break.
6
German Invasion of Poland 1939. 2 Million + Men. 2300 Aircraft. A few thousand artillery pieces. etc etc etc Honestly, I'd say, no. Even with the technological superiority, the pure numerical superiority of the Army that invaded Poland in 1939 would likely still win. You gotta remember, they also attacked Poland literally from all directions, and that isn't' even factoring in the Soviet Union's involvement.
5
@Yaso_Subibu Personally, I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to human action. So.. 1. The day before Russia instituted new rules that prevents the media from talking about Dams. 2. The Dam was blown within 24 hours of Ukraine launching it's counter offensive. 3. Ukraine spent months capturing all the Islands on the Dnieper River and even tried to make some bridge heads on the eastern banks over the past months. All that progress you can argue was lost over night. 4. Destruction accord on the Russian side? Dude you're talking about a regime that has leveled entire cities during this war already, do you really think they give a F***? I can sum it up well. If Ukraine blew up the dam they would of done it ahead of their counter offensive, NOT right when it started. Because of this they've had to wait an entire week now just to do any operations across the Dnieper while it's solders on the southern front have been grinding through Russian defenses. This favored Russia so god damn hard. Only just yesterday we finally got to see some military activity on the Dnieper again, something that would of happened day one of this offensive if the dam wasn't blown. Basically Russia likely know when the offensive was going to start. So I don't find it a coincidence it blew up literally right before that offensive started.
5
@voidwalker9223 Tankies, Putlerites and Communazis live in a fantasy world. I think saying 10% is too generous. USA has barely lifted a finger outside of sending munitions/money Ukraine's way. Russia has one of the largest air forces in the world supposedly... yet Ukrainian airspace is still Ukrainian airspace. After two years of war Russia has failed to suppress and eliminate Ukraines air defense capabilities, let alone it's tiny airforce of a few dozen aircraft. Question is where is the Russian Airforce? They're restricted to flying on Russian side of the front lines, and even their Su-57s are escorted by conventional aircraft when they go out on combat missions. Why after 40 years since the US/NATO proved how successful SEAD/DEAD tactics are at destroying soviet style air defense systems in the modern age, that Russia hasn't' been able to do the same in 2020? If the USAF was involved in this conflict Russia's air defenses wouldn't even exist anymore in the region within weeks to a few months of the conflict. Yet Ukraine even without the ability to do SEAD/DEAD has been able to cripple Russian air defense systems using drones and limited uses of ARMs munitions the Ukrainians have adapted to their existing aircraft. So much so Russia has now pulled most of it's air defenses along the NATO border to the Ukrainian Front. Which has been confirmed as well. Kaliningrad Oblast in particular has been stripped almost clean of it's ability to defend itself. This has left Russia itself internally defenses. Ukraine can almost effortlessly send drones into Russia... reaching targets as far north as Saint Petersburg or as fast East as the Caspian Sea, because Russia has stripped much of it's internal defenses to keep the front line secure. Sanctions aside even without the sanctions I think the reality that Russian technology just isn't up to par with Western designs. What good are aircraft without the capabilities to be useful in a modern sense? Ukraine war has proven how useless the Russian airforce is because Russia never developed or manufactured in sufficient quantity munitions that could be used to suppress and eliminate enemy air defenses. Basically turning all Russian aircraft including export models into nothing more than targets for ground based surface to air missile systems. Who wants to buy in short worthless aircraft that are useful for nothing but defending your own air space from enemy air attacks... and based on what is coming out in the west right now... those aircraft you're buying may not even be suitable for even that role. I mean the F-35 and F-22 are absolutely superior to anything Russia has developed including the Su-57. Su-57 is only stealthy from the front for example, basically meaning it lights up like a christmas tree to ground radar systems, or any systems coming it's way from other directions beyond just head on. Which makes the Su-57 good you can say as an air to air intercepter but not so good for literally any other role but engaging conventional aircraft. Pit it against a F-35 or F-22 which are stealthy from all directions they could find/engage Su-57's far easier and engage it from any direction without the Su-57 being wise until it's too late. The whole "Russian aircraft are affordable" excuse doesn't work when it will be a turkey shoot. You're better off with 10 F-35s vs 100 Su-35s in my opinion.
4
Short term Russia, long term Ukraine. It will dramatically expand the front line in the long term.
4
+You're Fired! French were known as cowards but were not cowards. British were bigger cowards in most respects. France lost more troops than Poland did in 1940, had it's airforce fought almost to the death, inflicting some actual air victories against the Luftwaffe. Some of it's defenses held strong, one town traded hands like 15 times during the Battle of France. In the end it was the split up of the French/British army, and forced evacuation of British forces from the continent, combined with the lack of air support by the RAF (being Britain wanted to save their Hurricane/Spitfires for home defense). The last nail, was when the Briitsh attacked the French Navy in port, even though France promised if they would surrender that French warships would be scuttled if the Germans tried to take them, but instead while they were still Allies the British attacked the French Navy, killing well over a thousand French Sailors. A lot of French, including Petain felt betrayed, it isn't a surprise the French Capitulated not long after.
3
@avengerpz same hypersonic missiles which have not crippled Ukraine after two years? Try again.
3
@zjpdarkblaze Yet Russia looses lots of men along side that equipment so it is kind of a moot point. A pro Russian blogger. Recently self deleted, because he posted raving lose figures of Russian forces from Avdiivka. You can argue he used conservative data but even that was grim if it drove him to that much depression. We've also been seeing them using T55s offensively as of late as well around Robotyne. Which means they're running low on tanks. Even though those T55s have been in Ukraine for roughly a year they've been used as mobile artillery. Now they're being used as front line vehicles.
2
Honestly manless turrets are just a bad idea personally. You have no backup to operate the primary weapons in case to remote systems go offline for whatever reason. T14's biggest issue is it has s remote turret but all the cameras to operate it are exposed... very exposed. Meaning even gunfire could disable the T14's ability to use it's primary weapons. Most crewed turreted tanks have backups to the electronic suites inside them. Manual controls, old glass/mirror optics etc etc. If one system fails the tank doesn't become useless.
1
@avengerpz Sounds like a convenient excuse. Likely pulled from someone's ass completely through speculation and no actual facts.
1
Biggest waste in military history. Even tops the Me210/410.
1
@ZoragRingael Not really, the water level has dropped considerably everywhere north /east of the dam. Kakhovka Reservoir you can literally see land where you couldn't anymore. Where the dam used to be the water level has also dropped. Ukraine also fully controls another dam farther up river which controls the amount of water that can go into the Kakhovka Reservoir. So they can control how much water now recedes. If they wanted to. Around where the dam used to be you can already see a lot of the bottom around it, meaning the water level dropped that much, and much of it is rocky, not mud. This is likely why the other day Ukrainian special forces crossed there.
1
Americans have the means to suppress enemy air defenses. Something Russia lacks. And something Ukraine has been successfully using on a small scale like in Crimea. Ukraine lacks pilots/planes that can SEAD so mostly do it with a combination of aircraft and long range missiles. ie use ARMS jury rigged onto MiG29s to suppress SAMs giving more ASMs to hit their targets. Sometimes even knocking out some SAMs in the process but a smary ground crew would turn their radar off once they realize what's going on. SEAD just has to convince those crews to keep their heads down. This is why historically American aircraft loses to SAMs is very low.
1
@benwinter2420 Not really, they're always followed by APV. The reason you sometimes see a Turtle alone is because the APVs didn't make it.
1