Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Why Taiwan is NOT Ukraine" video.

@tm3156 Russia beat them all easily? Is that why the Kiev offensive failed, the Kharkiv offensive failed, the massive encirclement failed, etc?
19
@obsidianstatue You're just moving goalposts. The best Russia has to offer has already been defeated in combat, and you're acting as if it's all an unknown variable. Also funny how you claim "NATO fights inferior opponents" when I clearly mentioned an inferior vehicle (IFV) belonging to the "inferior" country (Ukraine) hitting a modern Russian tank from the side until it caught on fire.
13
@obsidianstatue Bradley IFVs took out T-72s in Desert Storm tanks to TOW missiles. We've also seen the Ukrainian footage of an IFV autocannon setting a Russian tank on fire. Being in more wars doesn't mean the inanimate objects gained experience.
7
@kostaverle3551 Their opinions of the West/US notwithstanding, they still come live here. They may hate us, but they still come.
5
Lmao I didn't even notice ahahaha oh man that's actually embarassing
4
@obsidianstatue On paper space flight is "hypersonic". The issue is, the speed of sound decreases as you climb into thinner atmosphere, and essentially there's no speed of sound in space. The reason the US experimented with atmospheric hypersonics and didn't go further is because warheads coming down from space are """hypersonic""". However, having a human inside an atmospheric hypersonic craft that isn't meant to go to space is an amazing achievement for the 60s. I don't have a problem, the issue is the same old "bro China has AI bro they're gonna beat us with AI bro". Stop. AI isn't even AI. It's just a computer slamming against a wall until you give it a billion attempts to not do something stupid. That's not "artificial intelligence". It's like training an animal to perform tricks. You do realize that even the common heatseeking missile requires a special glass and cryogenic cooling due to the fact that the missile's forward velocity causes the overheating of the nose, right? It's perfectly reasonable to assume a hypersonic weapon may throttle back to supersonic for targeting data and also for last minute evasive maneuvers. The big deal with hypersonics is very short flight time between launch and arrival at the target zone. A missile that stays supersonic all the way would have to look through a much larger area to find the moving target. My comment was about you bringing up the T-72 combat record. It's not that great. Then you parroted the usual cope of saying NATO fights inferior enemies. Well, maybe they shouldn't have bought Russian gear and they wouldn't be inferior.
3
@obsidianstatue At this point you have to be pretending. The US overreacted to every piece of Soviet equipment. You know damn well what phenomenon he was referring to. Hitting a moving target with a missile is kind of the bare minimum for a missile. That's kind of what they have to do. AI? That's a buzzword. Back in the day those were just called algorithms and bombs with the brain power of a TI-84 were able to identify targets since what, the 90s? Yes, tanks and missiles are different. We were scared of tanks. Bombers. Fighters. Everything under the sun. And we have consistently been scared of boogeymen that never materialized.
2
@obsidianstatue The US flew manned hypersonic aircraft in the 1960s. Yes, AI is a buzzword when it does nothing existing algorithms weren't already doing decades ago. How does an infrared sensor see anything? At hypersonic speeds the heating of the vehicle will blind an IR sensor. I didn't steer the conversation. I described what the other posted said. It's you who's steering it into the opposite direction as you realized your mistake.
2
@agapp11able T-90 losses have been recorded much earlier than you think, bub.
2
@obsidianstatue I'm going to also ask you to also understand what you're replying to. The other poster said that since the DF-17 has not been used in combat, he's going to assume it's like the T-72 - scary on paper, but when real life catches up to the claims it seems to have trouble meeting expectations. He didn't say the T-72 was in few wars. He was talking about the way technology is treated before it sees combat.
1
@agapp11able Is this a joke? If you're forced to retreat, you've failed. If you come up to me to mug me, and I pull out a gun, and you run away scared, are you going to claim the crime wasn't thwarted because you weren't pushed back by bullets? Yeah, because Ukraine gave up territory for safety. Seriously, what do you think war is? Just people with no brain running full speed at each other? When an enemy force is trying to overwhelm you and you know standing your ground is certain death, you pull back and allow that advance. The problem with those advances? The further away Russian forces are from the rail network, the worse their supply lines get. It also allows the defending side to pull away from the fighting forces, and come from the side to attack the supply forces. You don't fight the men with the guns. You use your guns and kill the guys driving the trucks.
1
@AlexOnTheSide183 Not sure what your point is. At no point was the US running out of Abrams, but it seems Russia is transporting T-62s. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel. Ukrainian vehicles being destroyed doesn't matter, they're fighting for their land, not their vehicles. Russia needs to seize control of Ukraine, and that means they need vehicles to conduct operations. There's also footage of the DPR/LPR conscripting men by force. Russian commanders have also been killed.
1
@AlexOnTheSide183 The T-62s were seen in rail transport in Melitopol. I didn't "dig", it's all over the internet, several people with phones filmed the T-62s on rail cars. The point is that the losses are forcing more conscription, while you minimize this occurrence. LPR and DPR are fools fighting for Russia. They are fighting for someone else to take the land. They're being used as meat shields, Putin does not care about their lives.
1
@AlexOnTheSide183 Is this a joke? So Ukraine sent their tanks to Russia to send them back to an area of Ukraine that's under Russian occupation? Are you kidding me?
1
@AlexOnTheSide183 Why would they put them on rail in Melitopol, and then unload them again? I'm sure the crew will give a shit about their death trap. The T-62 can be killed even by a RPG-7. "As song as it can do what its supposed to do" - And it won't. That's the problem. Decades and decades of this "old and cheap is fine as long as it does the job" and American weapons obliterate them.
1
@Ravi9A Are you denying that modern equipment has been destroyed in Ukraine?
1
@AlexOnTheSide183 Plenty of places, such as Iraq. The US never used Stugna-Ps or Soviet AT mines. They dropped things like laser guided bombs from F-111s, Mk 20 Rockeyes from A-6s or Maverick missiles. Cheap, but efficient. And dead. Even Bradley IFVs took out T-72 main battle tanks. Expensive IFV beats cheap main battle tank. You forgot that efficient doesn't mean effective. It just means you spent little money. Gun goes boom doesn't mean much when a store bought drone can drop a grenade on your cheap tank before you can even get within gun range of your enemy.
1
@Ravi9A It's not an irrelevant question. The best Russia has to offer isn't doing them any good. They're pulling out T-62s out. Things aren't going well.
1
@Ravi9A It's not Syria, dawg. Melitopol.
1