Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ukraine's Ancient Tanks - The T-55 Fights Again!" video.

  1. The inescapable reality is that those "SPGs" will be called to perform the duties of tanks when needed. We still see the footage of Russian tanks being used in assaults, and both the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives required the use of tanks as tanks by Ukrainian forces. They're being used as SPGs because the conditions for concentrating force an breaching frontlines simply aren't there yet.
    12
  2. They most likely do not have "thousands" of T-55s in a usable condition. The thousands of T-72 turned out to not really be there so they needed the thousands of T-62s, of which they're planning to refurbish... Around eight hundred. Hulls sitting on the rain and snow for decades really aren't up to snuff.
    3
  3. And the Bradleys actually took out main battle tanks in Desert Storm in head to head combat before Abrams could arrive to help.
    2
  4. It would be drone grenade bait.
    2
  5. If I defend my house with a musket, the internet will hail me as a hero. If I try to rob a bank with a musket, the internet will laugh at the CCTV footage of me getting taken out by the police.
    1
  6.  @tebbs94  General "I'll call China first" Milley?
    1
  7. They don't have T-64s. The T-64s were built in Ukraine, and deemed too expensive to build an entire army with them. So the T-72s was developed as a cost-cutting alternative. Russia has the means to produce and refurbish the T-72, while the T-64 facilities are stuck in Ukraine so they lost access to those after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The T-62s? Those have been used as main battle tanks. There's video evidence of their use and destruction.
    1
  8. That was said about the T-62s too. Then they were used as main battle tanks.
    1
  9. That depends entirely on many factors. There's been many production batches of F-16 and different Block upgrades. It depends on flight hours logged per aircraft, a larger airforce may log less hours per aircraft while a small force probably flew their airframes until the wheels fell off. If you have a force with a hundred F-16s, an upgrade may make sense thanks to economies of scale. If you have 30, it may be cheaper to just buy 30 F-35s. Aircraft pricing is very counter-intuitive because people always assume doing X is cheaper than Y but that's not a given.
    1
  10.  @stingingmetal9648  Russia isn't doing the upgrades.
    1
  11. The claim that the Nordstream pipeline attack was carried out by the US comes from a journalist who spent the last three decades lying about the US military, has no sources, made several mistakes and has quoted Scott Ritter (a Russian asset and convicted p*dophile) in interviews.
    1
  12.  @randomlyentertaining8287  Because we typically care about our troops, so we want them to have modern optics and good protection. The same job can be done with older and expendable vehicles, but expendable crews. Tons of flag draped coffins coming home isn't good for morale.
    1
  13.  @ProblemOfficer3000  Imagine Mexico essentially getting a "sorry man, you'll stop existing in three days so we're leaving" so they had to fight off the US with only Cold War era stuff before the actual aid arrived.
    1
  14. But the same thing was said about T-62s. Today, we see them taken out in frontline combat.
    1
  15.  @MFitz12  The evidence says they haven't ran out of rusted hulls in Siberia. The evidence says they are running out of components and refurbishable units.
    1
  16.  @MFitz12  Thousands of hulls beyond saving can't be brought back. Thousands of hulls that had the parts stripped to repair working tanks or sell to foreign export markets can't be brought back. The thousands of hulls don't have thousands of trained crews either.
    1
  17.  @MFitz12  Americans don't treat hulls like Russians do.
    1
  18.  @limedickandrew6016  No need to meet a tank for Ukrainians to blow it into space. 1965 to 1955 is a huge gap. A Bradley would chew through a T-55 because it chewed through T-72s in the 90s. Dude... A T-72 wasn't an even match for Bradleys in Desert Storm. What makes you think the T-55 will fare better? Air power over Ukraine - when Kharkiv happened they stopped responding to calls for help due to the number of airframes lost in 1-2 days. Ukrainians certainly don't leave airpower out of the equation. That's why they bring air defense traps with them. Attack a Russian position to get them to call air support, aircraft come in, defenses were pre-positioned to ambush the Russians. That's how Kharkiv was possible despite the so-called Russian air superiority. Ukraine is on the defense. Russia picked the time and place. They had every advantage and squandered it. That's why we laugh. You try to sucker punch someone, but slip and fall, we laugh.
    1
  19. Armies are also smaller today, since mechanization and electronics replaced manpower. Just imagine the number of scouts and recon elements you'd need to get the coverage a humble drone can get in a day. The clearer battlefield picture also made dangerous to amass too much force. As soon as a staging area is discovered by drone, aircraft or satellite, rocket artillery with cluster warheads would shred the attacking force before it even began the assault.
    1
  20. But the first B-52s started getting retired in the 1960s. The B-52Gs were destroyed in the 90s to comply with the START treaty. Only B-52Hs remain, which means none of them will have 100 years of service.
    1
  21.  @admiraltroll5255  I wouldn't want to be in an old tank against an autocannon. Again, drone that bad boy in the turret.
    1
  22. This was said about the T-62. Then T-62s were used offensively.
    1
  23. The infantry support vehicle still has to cross from staging area to battle in order to support the infantry. Enemy will see tank, and target it like a tank. The crew can scream pretty loud that they're just "infantry support" but the enemy will bring down the hammer on them.
    1