Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "H I Sutton" channel.

 @NickyDekker89 Yeah, and whose fault is that? Russia's. It's their fault people are dying. We made comedies about WWII, stop being a concern troll.
3
 @s3p4kner This is Musk coming up with excuses. Everyone knew Starlink was used at the frontline, it was reported over a year ago.
2
@ahmedalsadik If you draw a straight line in MS Paint, you can handle it like an object until you select something else, and use Ctrl+C Ctrl+V to get a parallel line.
2
They're V1 style, and Russia is seemingly having trouble with refinery capacity. Amazing how Russia trying to freeze Ukraine by targeting power generation is not "desperation", but Ukraine finally going after Russia's jugular after international pressure asked them not to is. Meanwhile, Russia is sending men in golf carts and motorcycles to the front due to armor losses. That's desperation.
2
Amazing how you people think only the CIA has basic engineering skills.
2
 @kentershackle1329 if your orders are to kill my family, I'd gameend you while you're in the toilet. And I'd sleep like a baby afterwards.
1
 @santoriniblue8413 1000 troops is nothing for the US, they probably have more stationed in Germany.
1
Well minus one of each since last night.
1
@gattonero2915 Please rationalize a mad rush to Kiev, attempts to cut the city off in the West by heading towards the highway, the Hostomel air assault and the vans with riot police with "Russian doctrine". Unless Russia really does live in an alternate universe I don't see how "doctrine" covers the use of troops in riot gear getting killed.
1
@gattonero2915 It's not a side objective if the failure of said objective had to change the entire way the operation was conducted. Sure, you don't fail the mission if you fail a side objective. It's still a failure of the side objective. You claim that failing a side objective is just a difference in doctrine. No. It's not doctrine. It's failure. I have no false messiah. I'm here just to watch Russia lose. You have a false messiah. And he will fail. The USA did not "fail" after capturing Baghdad. You have a severe misunderstanding of the history behind the post-2003 events in Iraq. Iraq was defeated. It was done, and the army disbanded. You also repeat the "feint" claim. There are limits on transportation and how much you can squeeze forces into a deployment area. The capital is never left undefended, so the troops would be fixed anyway and wouldn't be brought to the East. It's literal children's logic to think hundreds of thousands of active and reserve units would all congregate to the East like ants.
1
@gattonero2915 How does that explain anything about Russian doctrine? The fighting in Iraq was not "Iraq vs Coalition". It was a converging mess of foreign terrorists and Ba'ath party loyalists who decided to fan the flames of sectarian conflict. Most of the deaths in Iraq resulted from terror attacks and Iraqis killing each other. Fake balloon truck? What? The doctrine is that Russia can step on as many rakes as it can in this conflict and can never admit a mistake. It was a feint, bro. Winning at Kiev was just the cherry on top, which is why so many men and equipment were put at risk in such an insane move. You don't throw lives away for a cherry. "Eradicating Azov" = cope. Snake Island was a couple of weeks after Lysychansk. And they were driven away by explosions.
1
 @SlimyHamWallet Russia flattened Ukraine Day 1. Did you miss the MASSIVE missile onslaught? It was Shock & Awe over there. Russia blew their wad.
1
@SlimyHamWallet Because of 1. defenses 2. repairs and 3. weapons cost money. Taking out internet is extremely hard. It was literally designed for the military to launch nukes in case HQs were struck. Even the Coalition had trouble disabling Saddam's comms network in 1991. It would cost billions of dollars to try and disable the internet in Ukraine, and repairs would bring it back online eventually. I swear you people seem to not know anything about any subject at all.
1
@SlimyHamWallet Russia already attempted to destroy power plants. The problem is that repairs are quick enough, as you cannot out enough payload to permanently take out a power station. If out of every 10 missiles used 9 are shot down, and it takes 10 missiles to entirely take out a power plant, you just expended 100 very very expensive missiles on a single target. Ukraine has Patriots now but due to aid delays there's issues with relocating them back and forth. If you don't remember, Russia lost a dozen Sukhois in a couple of weeks because Ukraine moved a Patriot battery forward. So Ukraine had to sacrifice defense recently to take out fighter-bombers. Ukraine also had the S-300s back then, Ukraine's supply of Soviet-era stuff is decreasing as they expend ammunition. The amounts in storage in other Eastern European nations aren't infinite.
1
Bruce Simpson (known for the youtube channels xjet and rcmodelreviews) wrote a guide in the 2000s. His model cost 500-600 in Australian dollars, non inflation adjusted.
1
@simonmoorcroft1417 No. A conventional horizontal stabilizer on the tail pushes down to counteract lift pushing up. This is necessary due to the forward center of gravity of having the engine and payload up front. This means you're paying in drag to have lift countering the main wing lift. What a canard does is that the main wing and the canard both have the lift vector pointing up, so the drag you incur all contributes to lift rather than having a counteracting force. Canards help delay stall because the canard is designed to stall before the main wing, so when you stall the canard the main wing lift causes the nose to point downwards and thus regain airflow over the canard. Canards do not allow you to fly slower, when you fly slow the nose just enters a dive and you regain speed.
1
It's easier to track the control boards. The flying Ginsu will also need a rocket boost and thus leave chemical traces.
1