Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Was Bakhmut worth it? — Reaction to Michael Kofman" video.

  1. ​ @frankrenda2519  I distinctly remember Wagner getting cut off from prison recruitment even before the battle for Bakhmut was decided. When you can't regenerate losses by the tens of thousands you're exactly where Ukraine wants you.
    14
  2. ​ @hendrikvanleeuwen9110  But Wagner was the meatshield for the Russian military. Ukraine needed to wear down their shield before they could produce significant casualties on the real army.
    6
  3. Not only did they do photo ops with released convicts, some of them went straight back to crime and got arrested again.
    2
  4. Russia tried to encircle Bakhmut instead of fighting through, Ukraine reinforced the flanks and forced Russia to fight where they didn't originally want - in street to street fighting. Now that Russia has taken the town, Ukraine is advancing on the flanks. It's fundamentally an unequal play.
    2
  5. The flaw in your logic is that you think that such ratios are static. If abandoning 2:1 areas causes 3:1 areas to instead become 1:3 because abandonments gave Russia new points of entry for maneuver, you actually lose the fight.
    2
  6. He's been constantly wrong since Feb 2022. He's a terrible analyst.
    1
  7. The defenses are just a way to delay and line up the enemy for ATGMs and artillery. Russian telegrams actually criticized how poorly built the defenses were. They're hard to cross because they are under fire. But the construction was awarded to civilian contractors rather than military engineers.
    1
  8.  @andrewpease3688  What's the point of solid defenses when they're built on the wrong side of a slope? The Telegram post by Rusich (who are rabid haters of Ukrainians) has detailed explanations of defenses that make no sense. What's the point of a fortified shooting position if you're looking at dirt? The enemy will use the slope as terrain masking and get close enough to shoot at you inside your defenses. You know how in the Normandy landing scenes in videogames and movies the Germans have bunkers with slits facing the beaches so they can shoot? You build those on elevation and facing the beach. Not on low ground and facing a rock wall. It's an extreme example but just trying to make a point. A thick steel door. Okay. That's good anti-theft stuff. Not really what's gonna save people from artillery, FPV drones, etc.
    1
  9. Prigozhin only became a threat because he failed.
    1
  10. Coping is bringing up a pyrrhic victory to try an argue that an attacker forced into street to street fighting took less casualties than the defenders.
    1
  11. There's hundreds of interviews and testimonies like that from Russian soldiers. Everyone is bound to have a bad day in bad events like wars. You think the Russian soldiers lined up in formation visited by the tungsten rain were happy? Nah, they were lined up and shot with a guided missile as the gunman.
    1
  12. Soldiers serve the state, mercenaries serve the company.
    1
  13.  @valentinursu1747  It's supposed to mean that technically Wagner employees can finalize their contract. It's one of the reasons why one would even want a PMC contract - you fight for X amount of time and then leave. If you get mobilized, you get sent to the front until you expire. Wagner is high risk, high reward. The Russian military is medium risk, no reward. You're trapped in the war until it ends.
    1
  14. It's a combination of overhead cover and quick response. If helicopters hover around outside MANPADS range but low enough to be masked against longer range surface to air missiles, they're hard to take out. However a fighter can fly within a few miles of the frontline and use look-down radar to destroy the helicopters. If you need to drop artillery on defensive positions you need drones to scout the frontline and call in those fire missions. A pilot with a targeting pod on his jet can perhaps see ATGM teams on infrared camera and drop a bomb on their position within minutes, without having to communicate someone else to fire and wait for them to line up the artillery pieces.
    1
  15. What a nonsense statement. Mariupol was surrounded. The choice was filtration camps or take the supposed humanitarian corridors that could be shelled (like Russia did in Syria. Bakhmut was mostly evacuated. Cities are where roads and rail lead to, and structures offer shelter. Concentrating military forces away from supply lines in the middle of open fields is illogical.
    1
  16.  @martstam2016  That's an insane comment. So instead of buildings, lives should have been annihilated. You're accusing others of seeing this as a football game, but you want men to take their deadly weapons and fight away from cities where they'll suffer massive casualties as soon as they're within range of artillery. Open terrain does not offer cover. The outskirts of Bakhmut have tons of trench lines. The RF take casualties there because they cross the open terrain and get clipped there. Human life is worth more than concrete. So we should use concrete jungles for protection. Urban warfare was MASSIVE in WW2. Is this an absolute joke?
    1