Comments by "David H" (@DavidHalko) on "The Truth About Ukraine's Bayraktar TB2 Drone: Project Ukraine" video.

@euunul - “Americans had better weapons in Vietnam and Afghanistan and still lost” You did not read the history books on those. The North Vietnamese signed a peace accord and the war ended during the US Nixon Administration, after Nixon bombed the border to oblivion & allowed the South to fight with the Communists who got fewer supplies. The Vietnam War resumed during the US Fire Administration, there a Democrat controlled Congress refused to fund South Vietnam’s air support, that was part of the previously signed peace accord. A second war was lost, because US Democrat racist traitors decided not to bother bringing air support for the yellow skinned South Vietnamese. Refusing to fight a new war is different than losing the previously successful campaign. Conquest of Afghanistan was never the goal, the goal was to end al-Qaida’s presence there, the major players were captured & killed, a new government was stood up, a peace accord was struck with the previous government which hosted al-Qaida (that the Taliban would not host/protect Al-Qaida or other such anti-American terrorist group again), and the US left. Leaving after objectives were achieved in not losing a war. War is about achieving objectives that were impossible to achieve through diplomatic means.
4
@jansix4287 - $30k-$40k is cheap $$$ When the target is $1m+, it is a steal!
1
@mariuspretorius7913 “500 or so vehicles lost” Which is why Russia is using civilian trucks to deliver military supplies. LOL! You are suggesting that Russia, a nation spanning 2 continents, went to war with the Ukraine with only 500 military type trucks, got them all destroyed, and now has to use civilian trucks to move supplies? ROTFL! Wow, not even the most brainwashed of Putin fanatics can believe facts & figures like that! Reminds me of the Hitler’s Nazi SS followers, who leaned on Adolfo’s words, until his final death. How sad.
1
@euunul - “evacuate last personnel” Evacuating diplomatic personnel is far different from an army being defeated on a battlefield. The loss of local civilian governments is not the same as the loss of military units in engagements. In the end, civilians must be ready to stand up a government, protect people in their border, and protect people from outside their border. The inability of a government to protect their people from within & without is more of a failure of local governments. Failure of local governments result in evacuation of civilian personnel.
1
@mortonssaltytears4496 - “2x the munitions… 50% more loiter times… worth the difference?” Maybe, maybe not. Depends if the goal is to provide air support to small tactical forces behind enemy lines. It could be!
1
@jansix4287 - “RGW90… 5000 euros” Different strokes for different folks! Definitely preferable for light or no armored vehicles. $5k for a $20k vehicle is a great trade off! Just have to use the right tool for the job: - Javelin for heavy tanks & air @ distance - NLAW for heavy tanks & air @ near distance - RGW90 for remaining @ near distance Would I bring a knife & a gun to war? Yes… both if I could If I had to choose, gimme the gun with longer range, so I have less chance of being hurt
1
@euunul - “you are implying that US achieved its objectives of destroying AL Qaeda after…” Nope. Afghanistan is a nation. Afghanistan hosted al-Qaida. Al-Qaida repeatedly attacked America. Afghanistan national council of elders voted to turn over al-Qaida criminals to the US. Taliban rejected vote, decided not to. US invaded Afghanistan. Nearly all Al-Qaida involved in attacks were captured or killed. US extracted commitment from Taliban to not host & protect al-Qaida or similar terrorist groups attacking the US. Objective met. Al-Qaida & Afghanistan are not al-Qaida. Al-Qaida has new leadership. [eu unul] - “offshoots have more fighters now than 2001” They are not attacking America. You may or may not get it. Let me tell it to you straight. American wants their Afghan blankets, Pakistan carpets, Grape Leaves from Lebanon, Berber carpets from North Africa, Chinese food, etc. Americans don’t want war. Once you understand that, you understand the objectives of America… because America is made up of people from all over the world, so they want to trade with people from all over the world. This trade brings wealth across the world & improves the lives of others. Attack America, nearly every nation on the face of the earth is directly or indirectly suffers. It makes the world poorer. That is stupid.
1
Hi @EatMyShortsAU - I might suggest that it is not as much of a one way street for cost, as you suggest, in American weapon systems. There are military requirements. There are normally bids. The lowest bids that meet the requirements normally win the contract. Because American Soldiers have a high cost, the weapon systems are designed to preserve American life. If that means the use of a weapon is to keep Americans out of harm’s way by increasing the distance, the lowest cost for this is accomplished in the bid. The operator is considered in the cost, via requirements. If the cost is so astronomical for the weapon, the work is spread between various manufacturing points across the nation, to increase likelihood that more state representatives will approve funding. If weapon systems are to be voted by foreign legislators, even if the cost is not so dramatically high, manufacturing may be spread to multiple nations, to put their skin in the game if a bid is lost, so it impacts their nation’s jobs. If the cost is so astronomical that the US military alone can not afford it, it seems some manufacturing is done with overseas partners who will also bear the cost through future purchases, that their legislatures must vote to fund. There are both budget constraint & budget expansion pressures. Bang for the buck is not the sole measure for the cost of a weapon system, so is the cost of operator training & cost of a lost operator.
1