Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "How Tough Are They? The True Size of Russian Defenses in Ukraine - 3D DOCUMENTARY" video.

@SpicyTake I don't think Ukraine has enough tanks to re-create that battle. The Russians do, or soon will have.
13
@Guff1e Ground means much more to Ukraine than to Russia. Russia did just enough to ensure all the fighting was on Ukrainian territory. Recent strikes deep into Russian territory are a major escalation from the Russian perspective, pushing them closer to an all-out offensive, assuming that wasn't their plan all along.
13
Yes. Block all who disagree with you. That is the shortest path to Great Wisdom.
13
@nicnsugar Russia has a different opinion as to who's the aggressor and when this war actually started. Hence, war.
9
@potatoman8194 Yes. They don't have to be good to affect enemy plans. All they need to do is slow them down or make them look for easier-looking places to attack.
8
@MajorZero508 NATO lacks stockpiles and industrial production to provide Ukraine what it needs. Relying on anti-personnel munitions to detonate anti-tank mines will get a lot of tanks and other armor destroyed. They need line explosives (Basically heavy, high-explosive detonation cord fired by a cannon), followed by tanks with rolling-pin flails to open up a path. This can go fairly quickly, if you can protect the engineers and equipment protected by strong air defense. Without the engineers, equipment or air cover, such operations are futile.
8
The rate and efficiency of the trench-digging and dragon's-teeth sowing are off the scale. Your critique is based on a misapprehension of their purpose and how jealously the Russians will guard them or even care about them. Miles are built, literally overnight. How good or bad they are is less important than the fact the enemy must stop to contend with them. They must plan attacks as though they are properly constructed. And at the current rate of peak counter-offensive, they may have already served their purpose of buying time for complete mobilization and training of fresh troops and equipment. The Russian Army is easy to defeat, today. Then you have to beat a bigger Russian Army, tomorrow. And the next day. I didn't know there was a 'side' to where the dirt is thrown or even consider it made a difference to which side it was thrown. As a couch-potato analyst, I presume you want that dirt thrown to the side facing the enemy. Now I wonder if part of their strategy is to mine them and invite their occupation by Ukraine, and/or have artillery strikes already vectored-in. In any case, Ukraine would still need massive artillery and air support to suppress the counter barrages, even without the sneaky trick of mining them.
6
Yes, and they lose those gunships at a fairly alarming rate, because they expose themselves to Russian air defenses when they are used as missile-launching platforms. This is a drawback of StormShadow.
5
@neskada Tell that to a landlord in California or New York or Illinois, USA.
4
@nobodyherepal3292 Even with training, green troops are less effective and suffer higher losses. But I don't think these losses are putting a dent in their replacement rates, and they're gaining experience with every engagement. I do agree that the missile attacks on Russian logistics, supply and even convoys behind Russian lines are very troubling to the Russians, but for that reason may have the opposite of their intended result. Russia was content playing patty-cake along essentially static lines outside of Russia, especially with favorable casualty rates, thanks to retreat-and-counterattack-with artillery tactic. Yes, the Ukrainian counter-offensive is putting stress on the forces currently on the front lines, but it's costing Ukraine and NATO more than they can afford to sustain, and as long as Ukrainian zone of control hasn't even reached the first line of Russian fortifications, Russia has the luxury of a steady build-up, even if the tactical situation isn't ideal, the losses are not much more than skirmish-level, begging the question of the larger strategic and geopolitical considerations, virtually all of which weigh heavily on the Russian side, and trending to increasing Russian advantage. You can make a movie about the brave Tiger crew that destroyed 10 T34s at the Battle of Kursk, and still miss the fact that it was a resounding victory for the Soviets.
4
@sassenspeyghel4155 Actually, the Germans followed the same Schlieffen Plan in both wars, and attacked through Belgium and the Netherlands in both wars. Belgian neutrality was much more important, strategically, in WW I, I think. I don't think anybody was kidding themselves about that before WW II, except a few diplomats who won their appointments by bribery. The French plan was pretty solid in concept, but they underestimated the Germans' speed through the Ardennes. Their plan was to counter-attack with specially-trained mobile forces, and those forces were actually quite good and acquitted themselves quite well.
3
@dragasinbrankovic Even the Russians aren't flying sorties over enemy territory.
3
I think a large fraction of the cannon along Torres Vedras were just painted logs. The enemy has no way of knowing. It just looks like a fortified artillery emplacement.
3
@nicnsugar Both sides have to believe they can win.
2
@johnwalsh4857 The scale of that destruction shrinks to the size of a gnat, and the cost to Ukraine of expending very small stockpiles of these "super-weapons" is greater than the sum effect on Russian men, equipment, and logistics.
2
@genericscout5408 Nuclear powers have warred on each other, before, but never with nukes. But no nuclear power has ever been threatened with annihilation by conventional forces, before. I have mixed feelings about proliferation. Seems like a bad idea. But if every nation had them, then it would be very hard for big countries to bully small countries. Unlike gun control, which I oppose, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is hard to argue against.
1
At this rate, we'll never know if those fortifications are effective, because Ukraine hasn't yet managed to reach them. These are fall-back positions, hastily constructed, and never yet used. Their purpose is to slow down any attackers long enough to vector in troops, air and artillery. My sense is that they will never even be used. It won't come to that.
1