Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Like the B-52, changes in weapons and electronics and changes in operational plans can make an older aircraft still useful. It is no longer being used as an air superiority in the classical sense. Remember that the F-22 was the air superiority fighter and the F-35 was to be the equivalent to the F-16 when it was first deployed, i.e. a fighter bomber. The main reason for the delays in the F-35 and its cost was refitting the design to do roles for which it was not originally designed. There is only between 40 and 60% commonality between the three versions, meaning that actually there is no economy in parts inventory since many different components are needed. So, like many bad decisions before it, the real failure isn't the aircraft; but the bad decisions. Solution, having a gun truck firing at range with the stealth platform providing the targeting. Is the concept workable, we shall see
    11
  2. More important was that the logic for them was that future wars were not going to be peer to peer warfare and essentially coastal in nature.
    4
  3.  @TwilightMysts  I agree with the point of your first paragraph; however, if you look at R&D and programs delayed or canceled (especially during the Obama Administration, program aimed peer to peer conflict were shelved or delayed. An excellent examples was the railgun and airborne lasers. While both had issues, the first generation weapons were well on their way to operational status. Anti-missile applications of lasers especially stand out in light of the Obama
    2
  4.  @TwilightMysts  hit the send too soon. "with the Obama Secretary of Defense stating words to the erect no one use ICBMs anymore. I guess both North Korea and Iran didn't get that message. The systems due on line would not have stopped the PRC or Rusdian Federation, but would have been well suited for their limited capability, and certainly would be better for the current generations of hypersonic missiles that the Russians have developed while we didn't even develop replacements for our ICBMs."
    2
  5.  @johnsilver9338  I would have to check which, but one has hull issues which cause stress cracking, I remember however it is the hydrofoil design. Limiting its usefulness. If a ship can't reach its zone of operations safely, is it useful?
    2
  6. These is as much a Russian propagandist as any Ukrainian propagandist source.
    2
  7. A better "what if" would be the US actually stay neutral . In effect, the US showed favoritism to the Allies. It could have used economic and potential power to encourage a more even handed end to the war. The video pointed out the importance of neutrality in 1917. The biggest problem was that ifUS citizens of Irish and German ancestry actually had enough votes to actually affect what the US did. Two years plus British propaganda helped shape the US decision to join the war.
    1
  8. The Germans and Soviets were allies in taking Poland. They divided Eastern Europe between them. They were trade partners.
    1
  9. What a piece of s--t. The Soviets in point of fact had signed a treaty with the Nazis giving them control of Eastern Europe and spliting Poland with them. The Soviets were to enter Poland at the same time as the Nazis, but delayed. The attack on Finland and the takeover of the Baltic states resulted from this treaty. The war with the Soviets was actually which of two dictators would attack the other first. Without Western support early in the Soviet German portion of the war
    1
  10. This is dumb. The Soviets and analysis were allies in 1939, and remained as trading partners into 1941. Both weren't really friends, both were waiting to stick the knife into the others back.
    1