Comments by "The Immortal" (@theimmortal4718) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

@bastikolaski8111 Where did you get that made up story from? Share with all of us.....
1
@bastikolaski8111 Surely you can tell us what battle that was
1
@reedraikes7471 We've also not encountered the depth of air defense present in Ukraine
1
@karloselthofer Neither have the Russians, then
1
@karloselthofer When?
1
@RobertLutece909 Very true. Neither aircraft is particularly well armored. Not like a tank. The armor is just around the pilot himself. Engines, avionics, rotors, and other key components are just as any other. My contention was with statements that the US has had a lot of Apaches downed. They really haven't. We can list reasons why that is, but it's a mistake at best and a lie at worse, to claim they have been shot down in large numbers.
1
@RobertLutece909 Mostly due to the fact that they try very hard to hide the true casualty numbers. Throughout the decades, many Russian mothers have been moved to petition the Russian government to find out just what happened to their sons.
1
Ukraine is using RPGs as well.
1
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Yeah light AT is very useful. The disposable RPG26 and 28 are pretty decent individual AT. The RPG 7 equivalents in the west are the M3 and M4 Gustaf and the German Panzerfaust 3.
1
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Well, like lighter AT weapons are less effective at any range. The Javelin is a top attack weapon, so it hits the lighter armor. It also has 2 warheads, so it defeats ERA better. Plus, it's guided, so it has better hit probability. Light AT generally aren't very accurate past about 200 meters. Light antitank weapons are great in urban environments, especially if you can fire from a second floor room down onto the armor, and they're cheap enough to be used against personnel and fortifications. Generally, the further out you can pop a tank, the better. He's got a lot of firepower that can really put a hurt on you. No infantryman would voluntarily choose to wait for armor to get close, unless he had no other choice. An MBT can soak up a lot of RPG rounds, if they're the lighter the PG7VL rounds. Some Abrams were known to take a dozen hits and still be FMC. Light AT are squad weapons, while ATGMs are platoon level weapons. You want both. It's not an either, or dichotomy.
1
@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Oh, I know there is. This is what I do for a profession. There's no free lunch. ATGMs and artillery are the preferred weapons for killing tanks, but like you said, in urban, it's sometimes beneficial to use light AT. An RPG7 or an M3E1 Gustaf weigh about 16 pounds unloaded, and 3 rounds weigh about 18 to 30 pounds, depending on the ammo. It might take multiple rounds to knock out one armored vehicle. A single NLAW or RPG29 weighs between 25 to 27 pounds, but can knock out heavy armor with one shot. A Javelin is the lightest of all heavy AT weapons at 35 pounds each missile, and the CLU is 15, but you get a lot for it With the Jav, you can scout with the FLIR without the missile attached, including using it to spot for artillery corrections or ID targets for friendly armor and aircraft. It also can kill helicopters in direct fire mode past 2000 meters. If enemy air is your sector, that's a real asset. We carry two AT4s by SOP in every squad, and two Javelins in weapons platoon along with our two M240s. We also keep a Gustaf in the trucks. The RPG7 is a great universal weapon, able to be anti armor and anti personnel, but it's very limited compared to the Javelin.
1
@roywilkowski2326 That's not what I'm saying. By Aug 45, we had airfields close enough to freely bomb any Japanese island we wanted to, with a lot of planes. We were going to continue to bomb them until they quit, either way. The specific choice to use the bomb was to send the USSR a message. The war in Europe had been over for 3 months, already, and it was obvious which way the fate of eastern Europe would be. Patton was very vocal at the time saying that we should have kept going east to find more camps.
1
Yeah, the M3
1
@timothydixon2545 Sometimes it's exactly that.
1
The biggest killer of armor in Ukraine is artillery. You can have the most effective tank in the world, but once you are done with your assault and try to hold ground, it will get spotted from the air and targeted. Tanks are big pieces of equipment to try and hide. It doesn't matter how much armor you have if you get hit on the roof with a 155 round
1
@Aditya Chavarkar You know that's right
1
Oh is one of these "your team"? Death entertains you? This isn't football, dude
1
It's been in use for way longer
1
@foilhat1138 Trump warned them multiple times and they pretended to be shocked or just laughed.
1
In Ukraine, artillery is getting most of the armored vehicle kills. Laser guided rounds with drone spotters lazing the target. A 152mm or 155mm artillery shell can kill any tank in the world from 25 miles away. Close range AA missile technology is having a renaissance right now and systems like the starstreak , Stinger or RBS 70 will be getting major upgrades. Helicopters passing waiting teams with these or defenders on objective can be easily hit, from milles in any direction. I'd say helicopters might possibly be limited in the future to only flying in secured areas, as there are better choices for directing precision fires on a target area.
1
@davidty2006 Only in asymmetrical warfare. Peer warfare is completely different
1
They may not sell many planes, but they sure sell a lot of ammo. Most rounds, from 7.62x39 to 122mm rockets and 82mm mortar rounds I encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan were made there
1
They'd get torpedoed right after firing
1
@bosanski_Cevap Ouch. That's true.
1
@bosanski_Cevap They did get hit pretty hard in Vietnam
1
@eduardokarlos1419 You don't really understand what's going on, do you?
1
@VisibilityFoggy I'm speaking more about armored cars that look just like humvees, camo patterns that look like Marpat and OCP, and body armor and helmets matching current issue US helmets.
1
Even worse, they have displayed poor comsec, resulting in the deaths of half a dozen generals to TB2 attacks. Unless Russia has a secret stockpile of competent battalions brigade, and division commanders we haven't seen yet, the situation on the ground will only deteriorate more for them.
1
@wilmeroberg9794 Lol. What? Min range for a Javelin is 65 meters, not 200., and you can have it ready in less than a minute. Why in the world would it take someone 3 minutes?? Plus, a Javelin team is 2 guys, with 2 missiles. You've never handled a Jav, dude. Where did you get this nonsense?
1
@dado-7775 Who are you talking to? Nobody here said any of that, at all. Nobody here decided to send the US military to war and nobody here said anything about dead children. So who are you really talking to? Nobody here
1
The OP said he was a mechanic. You think he was killing people while turning wrenches? You're a clown 🤡
1
@dado-7775 He told you in the comment. He said he was repairing Bradley IFVs. Can you not read?
1
@dado-7775 You do realize that this is a weapons channel, right? Why are you trying to talk about politics? Nobody cares. There are plenty of channels where you can talk about politics. People here are talking about the Bradley IFV. A thing
1
@ondrejbublavy7952 Where did you hear that? Russia has never requested to enter NATO. That makes no sense
1
@lukabajic9729 NATO isn't just anybody. It's eurooeans. Russia has always been outside Europe. No, I don't think Russia would fit in with the EUz either. That would mean accepting laws that would work against their national interest. This isn't over NATO. That's a red herring. This is about what's in the best interest of Russia. Shortened borders, an energy dependent opposition, access to the black sea (and all it's natural gas reserves), water rights, etc. Reducing itdown to who's a member of what little club doesn't get to the truth- money makes the world go around. And Russia needs money.
1
@taylorleeforcongress8470 No, the USSR never applied for NATO. That would be like the US applying to the Warsaw pact. Don't believe nonsense like that. The rumor comes from a supposed comment Gorby made to someone 30 years ago. That's it. Russia immediately formed the Commonwealth of Independent States, along with 8 other Soviet republics. They never had any interest in an economy or military subservient to Brussels.
1
@Terraraxi Do you know the EU does? What would Russia have to gain from allying with any of those countries? If anything they see what's going on in the west, with flaccid weak leaders, castrated NATO, the UN with their BS global warming schemes, the WEF with their economic assassinations, the western obsession with sex and race, and EUs command economy restrictions and bailouts of failing nations, and said "nyet!". Russia has everything to gain by fighting all those organizations, as they are filled with narcissistic, self absorbed cowards and sellouts. They are soft targets. The west has gotten soft and we will pay heavily for it.
1
@Terraraxi For individuals, yes. For the future of nations? Not really. The EU/NATO/UN model is failing. Europe had a long nap, and is now waking up from a dream.
1
@Pufty By whatever name they are, at one time or another, whether it be USSR or Russia, you're talking about the same people. All these people have been in powerful positions since they were the USSR. Same wealthy families, same politicians, same KGB goons. NATO remains for the exact scenario we are watching unfold right now. These nations in western Europe are just now realizing just how ineffective and neutered they are. They didn't even contribute the agreed 2% GDP on defense of their own nations, and are now facing a much larger power from the east. For all intents and purposes, we are watching the beginnings of the USSR 2.0 expanding eastward. NATO is worried that if they kill Russian soldiers, it'll trigger a nuclear exchange. Thus, he can probably gobble up 4 or 5 countries before anyone begins to help.
1
@Pufty Well, some country will fill the superpower void if the US isn't involved. In practical terms, you have to ask the question, "who would I rather have influence over my country?". Either way, smaller and weaker countries will have a measure of influence at the least over them from a larger power. Which power will treat your country more fairly? Which is more likely to force immigrate their nationals and demographically colonize your land? Those are very important considerations going forward. This is way, way more important globally than 9/11.
1
@taylorleeforcongress8470 Didn't think anyone was talking about pre- Warsaw pact and before the USSR at up eastern Europe. How is that relevant at all? NATO was formed to stop exactly what the USSR did. It's not that NATO is irrelevant because Russia isn't a threat- it's because NATO is a paper tiger with no real teeth.
1
@mladenmilosavljevic6449 And Russia has been bombing Ukraine since 2014. Ever think that the Russians were killing those people as well? It's a civil war that Russia has been involved in for a decade. Are you saying that Russia has saved lives by invading? Guess that 2000 number was too small for them, and instead would prefer the number to be 200,000, huh? Nigga please. No lives were saved, especially ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. You know what Russia did to "save" them? They forced them into the DPR and LPR militias, gave them sh*t weapons, and sent them to die, all the while turning the Donbass into a moonscape of bomb craters. How compassionate of them
1
@alexsuyarkov4121 You should find out who started shooting first. Educate yourself before you rattle off nonsense
1