Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Thugs Bullying the Russian Army" video.

  1.  @Cypher84X  dix out for him
    20
  2. "I totally could, but I won't" cope. Of course they can't do a genocidal run. It would undermine their efforts. They've pinned themselves down by their own objectives. Their only choices are biting down and suffer the losses, or go home.
    9
  3.  @matsv201  But the defender has to ambush said tanks. There's a reason the defending side gives up ground for safety, they're going to get killed in direct combat. That's why Russia is encircling cities and Ukraine is entrenching in them.
    6
  4.  @diersteinjulien6773  No, we expected it to be easy because Russia quite clearly went for the decapitating strike, and fumbled it. Logistics are part of the reason why Russia should have the advantage, but that's beside the point. Everything telegraphs their attempt to seize Kiev as soon as possible by gaining a foothold in Hostomel in the first night. When this was supposed to be a special military operation, they weren't kidding. It was supposed to be a clean regime change. It devolved into war because they couldn't pull it off.
    4
  5.  @theknifeman7097  We see the picture. They cannot afford to annex Ukraine so they need a more favorable Ukrainian government. That government will be massively unpopular if they cause too much damage. People smirking and saying Russia could win if they wanted... well, they can't. They lose, they might win but they still end up losing.
    3
  6. "Nobody with any sense thought this would take a few days" - The Russians did. Hence their failed assault on Hostomel. They were meant to have a direct air bridge to the outskirts of Kiev the first night. But fighting damaged the runway. Iraq is not comparable. The invasion started from Basra province for most of the Coalition. Baghdad is 280 miles from Basra. Kiev is 140 miles from the Belarus border. The Coalition was a lot more careful clearing out Iraq, because they did not want to get hit from the sides of behind. The ambushes in Ukraine show that Russia is advancing faster and somewhat carelessly. So even though they're advancing at a faster pace, it's taking them twice as long. You people bringing up Iraq really need to put it in perspective how bad it makes Russia look. Especially considering that the US was fighting halfway across the world, Russia is operating on their own doorstep.
    3
  7. Every day this goes on, they bleed money. Ukraine is already ruined so ironically they can afford to let this drag on, while Russia suffers economic damage just from having troops overseas.
    3
  8. They don't want that because they can't want that. It goes counter to their objectives.
    3
  9.  @boobrancher9941  It's not that they can't fly planes, they have less training hours and their doctrine is not as SEAD-heavy as the Western doctrine. They also have little to no real world SEAD experience. This means that the defenses that survived the first bombardments are still a danger to aircraft they really do not want to lose.
    2
  10. Sounds like a cope, tbh.
    2
  11.  @Seldomheardabout  Yes the failed air assault at Hostomel was just a distraction for the capitalist pigs.
    2
  12.  @brandonlinares5164  Bringing up Afghanistan when the Soviets also bungled that one up.
    2
  13.  @jakeq3530  The famous strategy of losing 4 generals in 3 weeks.
    2
  14.  @tracksuitcheems  Russia is big, but a lot of it is also empty. There's a reason they use rail. Let's face it, transporting things by rail is easier than airlifting everything into Saudi Arabia. Your questions to not follow a logical train. A country's military punching below its weight class isn't something you can just label "ineptitude". The damage to the airfield at Hostomel threw a wrench in the plan. It was enough to stop them because it turned a "special operation" into a war.
    2
  15.  @Xero1of1  Yes, because they have an entire country to defend. You do realize that you can't send your entire armed forces and leave a country unmanned, right?
    2
  16.  @realMaverickBuckley  Because they obviously attempted to secure an air bridge to the outskirts of Kiev so they could pour out troops around the capital and seize a quick capitulation. The fighting damaged the runway. Comparing it to Iraq makes no sense, because the US didn't skip the whole fighting aspect to deploy troops around Saddam's palace and ask for regime change. The fact that their media then accidentally ran an article about them taking back Ukraine also adds to the suspicion.
    2
  17. There's still ground defenses active.
    2
  18.  @Relbl  I don't see the point of drawing this comparison. The US can afford to leave foreign aid behind, Russia is losing their fighting material in a conflict. And they might not be able to afford replacing it. They're not losing peanuts. They've lost combat capacity in this mess. Not just the vehicles but people manning them. Most countries have on the fine print that able bodied men can't leave in case of invasion. So far, they don't seem to be conscripting as there's more volunteers than they're able to process. Iraq and Afghanistan had foreign benefactors. You really think that jihadists don't have international financing?
    2
  19. A shoulder fired weapon having a 30% success rate, and a real world success rate meaning there's failures and user employment issues, means that a shoulder fired weapon carried by infantry can knock out million dollar vehicles at a rate of 3 munitions used per vehicle. That's extremely favorable. Improve our weapons? Just the infantry can knock out tanks with shoulder fired weapons. There's the missiles mounted on infantry fighting vehicles. There's the guns on main battle tanks. We're not even taking into account the aircraft and how they plink tanks with ease with laser guided bombs. What needs improvement? Infantry already chews up armor before it can even get to fight other armor. This is outstanding.
    2
  20. So all Ukraine needs to do is make it so that taking it over requires its destruction to call his bluff. Sounds like a strategical failure to me.
    1
  21. That would be ridiculous because Russia just wasted a ton of material, weapons and manpower in Ukraine so they're definitely not in shape to be sent to freaking Mongolia and fight some more.
    1
  22.  @Xero1of1  So you're aware that Russia just blew their load and is unable to conduct offensive operations against a major power for the next decade, right?
    1
  23. You're misunderstanding. They haven't faced a large regular army since 1945. But they have waged war and bullied other nations.
    1
  24. They're made with most of the structure being fiberglass, they're smaller than a manned plane, and they essentially have a motorcycle engine which puts out limited IR. They're difficult to detect, and when you detect them they're difficult to track. There's a reason everyone in the arms business is chasing the anti-drone market, conventional anti air isn't extremely effective.
    1
  25. This only makes it worse. Imagine succeeding at a decapitating strike, and then you still get your men killed in this mess.
    1
  26.  @Cypher84X  Their better tech is not enough. They rely on numbers. What advantage to they get from thinning themselves out?
    1
  27.  @tiaandeswardt7741  Yes. My point is that Russia has superior firepower. If they had inferior firepower, Ukraine would be on the offensive.
    1
  28.  @matsv201  Okay. If Ukraine had superior firepower, they'd have their own front. That's my point.
    1
  29.  @tiaandeswardt7741  Look for the earlier comments. Someone says cities are being encircled. Then someone says cities can't be surrounded if the defender are superior firepower. They're using their superior firepower effectively. That's their problem. All they have is superior firepower.
    1
  30. His name is Coach Red Pill. He doesn't get to use his name. He's an internet clown, he uses his clown name.
    1
  31. If the Russians learned that in WW2 why did they do it in Chechnya?
    1
  32.  @Jolis_Parsec  Taking Taiwan? A lot of only sons will be on the bottom of the strait. That one child policy really biting them in the ass.
    1
  33.  @mazza4190  Blitzkrieg doesn't exist. It's a term made up by journalists.
    1
  34. Are you kidding? Right after WWII the US had Korea and Vietnam.
    1
  35.  @taker610  The fighting was conventional in both. In Korea the North had lost most of the territory when China intervened and fought off the UN forces. In Vietnam the US "won", a peace deal was signed, North Vietnam broke the agreement and the US said "no más" and left. Sure they were quagmires, but the point is that post-WW2 had plenty of conventional fighting. Gulf War '91 was also conventional.
    1
  36. Okay, so if we take Iraq as a comparison, Russia is taking double the time to get half the work done. That's not a good comparison, it makes the Coalition look like a well oiled machine. "Hitler said before the invasion of the Soviet Union “We have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”" - Funny, Putin must have said the same about Ukraine.
    1
  37.  @CaratacusAD  All I know is that they clearly planned for a two day incursion, which failed the moment the airfield at Hostomel was damaged in the fighting. Historically, they'll look for whatever they can get and declare victory. Look at the Winter War. They were unprepared, their enemy was weaker and would certainly lose, but the cost was too great so they got land out of the deal.
    1
  38. Putin laid out his objectives in his speech announcing the incursion.
    1
  39.  @JamesCasatelli  "And it's worked for them." - Did it?
    1