Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "The New Atlas" channel.

  1. It's not just the numbers alone. Range is still king in warfare, from melee times to modern days and now even more. When you got a shortcoming in range, is it numbers or even worse the ability itself, you got a problem you can't really compensate for. Tanks are not useless, but the reason they lost quite a lot of their meaning is just that. Even modern tanks got a firing range of around 5km. While that seems far, it's already way inside the killing zones of many other systems and with modern day surveillance, sneaking in with something big as a tank is also not really a good chance anymore. Western media loves to talk about how our oh so superior western tanks will one shot the oh so crappy Russian tanks. But that's not even a fight that will likely take place all to often. When it comes to the main front lines, drones, air force and (missile) artillery, wil be the main threat for any tank that tries to even get the chance for a shot. Russia for example got a guided anti tank missile system, very close to the Pantsir system, that can rip you apart pretty much any kind of armored vehicle at up to 20km range with upgrades even 100km. And that's just ONE system. As soon as you get close enough to fire yourself as a tank, you are not only already far inside the range of these systems, but then the enemy tanks and of course infantery is also close enough to you and of course Russia also has anti tank RPG. Tanks are really the least thing that will gonna make a difference for Ukraine.
    260
  2. "We got more missiles than we thought" sounds like "We got some old crap lying around that we haven't dismantled yet."
    179
  3. Always love when the say, the reason for Russia not taking Kiev or not bombing the shit out of Ukraine is Russia failing at it, being denied it, not the obvious, that they don't want to do it.
    158
  4. All history of warfare: "Don't get flanked!" Ukro/NATO strategy: "Let's put ourselves into a completely flanked position!"
    142
  5. "More precise than Russian weapons" - meanwhile Russian obliterating NATO camps on the western border of Ukraine with pinpoint attacks.
    83
  6. Grain export (in tons). Russia is exporting double as much, so the sanctions against Russia are likely a much bigger problem. 1 Russia 37,267,014 2 United States 26,131,626 3 Canada 26,110,509 4 France 19,792,597 5 Ukraine 18,055,673 6 Australia 10,400,418 7 Argentina 10,196,931 8 Germany 9,259,493 9 Kazakhstan 5,198,943 10 Poland 4,689,130
    63
  7. As Douglas McGregor said: if you see news about Russia, just replace it with "Ukraine" and you got the actual news.
    60
  8. "Only 5:1". Even if true. 5:1 sound so nice. Maybe say it that way. "They got 400% more artillery than us." You don't even want to see 20% more. 100% more is already a nightmare. 400% more is simply crushing.
    57
  9.  @markorsrpska7230  Because Russia went in to defend just these rights of the people in Donbass and on Crimea.
    48
  10. Main reason to start with for the strict rules is the massive backlash after the last regime change by the USA in Iran. Without this, Iran would have went further on its own, but when the US installed pupped tried to just abolish all the Iranian cultur and replace it with a western one plus all the violence involved, the backlash of course made it 'worse' than before, with great rejection against all the so called 'western freedom', which the regime change perfectly linked to the violence and abuse...
    45
  11. At least SOME kind of control. Tanks on their own simply don't work anymore in modern warfare, if you don't have all the other parts of your military working. They are like good doors in a house. You want to have those, but without the house they are pointless. Some decades ago, a good tank might have had a bigger use - especially in the usual NATO war, which mainly go against pretty light armed militias and in times with less precision and surveillance, a tank could rush in to get things into its own, quite low firing range and cause havoc. But today you got so many systems, which detect your tanks, mark your tanks and then dozens of weapon systems able to obliterate them... simply not working anymore. They are not worthless, but it's not compareable at al with their starter days.
    41
  12. Patriot missiles are just absurdly expensive.
    41
  13. If I see it right, those ATACMS are around 1--1,5M$ per shot. 220kg warhead. Pretty expensive for that and quite the limited range.
    36
  14. Overall you have to be even stronger to show restraint. A weak enemy would use everything he can, since he does not have the space for failure or holding back.
    34
  15. The most obvious is the usual: They managed to hit that Il-22, thought they shot it down and then just used their usual multiplier and took the most expensive plane they could find. Not really the first time they did it, question is how often people want to fall for it?
    30
  16. Reuters in the 1940th: "Reports from concentration camps could not be confirmed, the german government did us not give any information about them."
    29
  17. If that was the case, it was extremely stupid. That guy got ZERO chance for that. Media loved to point the camera at him, but that's it. All his BS talk was one thing when it was useful for deception on the battlefield, but someone like this in an actual leading position? Nope.
    28
  18.  @Turbo999be  Doesn't really matter where he has his hands in, he goes along with it, celebrates it, so he's part of it.
    28
  19. They are used to fight against an enemy, who simply can't fight back at all.
    27
  20. Not unlikely, they are simply defenseless against such drones. Air defense must be layered for just that reason.
    25
  21. Heared 6 an 8 NASAMs. Joke is: they cost 1,2 million per missile, so three times the cost of already expensive IRIS-T. Against <20k drones, they likely can't even lock on.
    24
  22. Don't have to go that far back. Two years ago a much lager US navy ship and only half that old burned out right in its homeport. Moskwa is over four decades old.
    24
  23. Also like the idea, that the "landbridge" is just a bridge and not, you know, land, 60+km wide.
    21
  24. What Ukraine wants is NATO joining the war and just saying "yeah, those are all Ukrainien forces".
    20
  25. That's just money laundring and they likely sell it for 2-10times the prize on top, since the NATO governments will throw money at it without care, as usual. Meanwhile what could these things produce? Maybe drone parts. Nothing such a portable 3d princer produces could survive any real military hardware.
    20
  26. I mean, that's pretty much what they already do with angry Nazis.
    18
  27. It's well known, that they do this - and even more ignored. It's disgusting.
    17
  28. Problem with sabotage is, that you very likely surprise people with it the first time you do it (and can even do stunts like 9/11). But of course it gets a lot harder the following times and will piss of your target in general...
    17
  29. They don't care. Never did.
    17
  30. Overall urban warfare it the one thing a tank might still shine, since it's close range combat, so you overall want something that can take a punch (IF it can take it). Field warfare... yeah, range of tank cannons are a joke there and they need do drive kilometer through kill zones of pretty much everything. Without something to protect the tanks from all this, which includes powerful ECM and anti air, yeah... pretty pointless. And Ukraine got nothing of this.
    15
  31.  @branislavpandur2270  Ukraine is losing the last 4-5 monthes, the only thin tha matters and that is life of soldiers and equipment. Massively. If you want to lose a war for sure, do it like that.
    15
  32. And it's not just the optic of the tank. When you look at leaks from the war, you often see Russian drones marking even soldiers and keeping them tracked. Easy to do that with a massive, heavy tank. And behind that possible Russian T-72 or better tank is a hell lot of artillery, attack drones, attack helicopters, missiles, air forces and of course the infantery can also not be ignored. The Abrams and Leopards won't have such cover or at best a fraction of it. Russia is also far better at keeping up their drones and bringing down Ukrainian drons with anti air or ECM.
    15
  33. No. Russian missiles. They are just that superior.
    14
  34. From Patrick Lancaster video, it seems that Ukraine got absolute terrible surveillance. So with such system they CAN shoot 50km or whatever, but they can't SEE 50km (what is far behind the horizon thanks to earth not being flat). One of the reason they just shoot at what can't move - like villages, even though no soldiers, neither from Donbass nor Russia, is there. With that, even if some of the western stuff survives long enough to put in action: it simply can't hit miltiary targets beside sheer luck. As their videos have shown over and over again, when they hit something, it's some lone units acting in front of the frontline or beside those. You get even close to winning a war with that.
    13
  35. Yeah, people don't get that the most part of invention comes from state education and research. Even when companies do their own thing, they still rarely educate people but grab them from schools and universities. On top of that and far worth: companies want to make big profit, by that it's not even their focus to improve things, but to exploit the status quo as long as possible.
    13
  36. Yeah... democracy wasn't really something we ever had in stock, actually. But we LOVE to advertise it.
    13
  37. There is barely any countress less sovereign than Ukraine since 2014.
    12
  38. Destroyed infrastructure hurts civilians the most. In contrary to Ukro and NATO Nazis, Russia never wanted to do that.
    12
  39. Those patrol boats are 100% helpless against any kind of air strike. How stupid can ppl be to sell this as a victory? It's like using a tank against a police car. Wow, you beat the police. With a tank...
    12
  40. Frighening for what? Me? Of course, I'm a human and even a knife is frightening for me. Against a high tech army like Russias? Not so much.
    12
  41. Wonder how far a FOAB (7t weight, 44t TNT equivalent) could glide.
    12
  42. In german media they made a big thing out of swiss not allowing swiss made Gepard ammunition to be sent to Ukraine. Laughed, when I heared the numbers: it's about 12.400 shots, while the original delivery was 30 Gepards (people must remember, the effective fighting range is around 4km or lower) and 60.000 shots. That's 2.000 shot per Gepard. Would be much if it would be missiles, but it's an anti air cannon destroying a target with several seconds long fire bursts - and the twin cannons fire ~1100 rounds per minute. 2000 shot for a Gepard is like a demo version.
    11
  43.  zollyy  Child, if Russia would have no red lines, Ukraine would still have a working energy infrastructure. And this cn of course continue... And holding some lands means nothing. Mexican drug cartells could easily fall into the USA and "hold some land". They will never do that, because it would be stupid and give them nothing but brutal push back.
    11
  44. Hel lot of weak armored stuff, likely good enough when you fight goat herders with rifles, a nightmar when you fight an actual army that just rips you apart...
    11
  45. It would indeed be a very odd malfunction...
    11
  46. "Russia tanks got turbine engines" Russia got sheer endless fuel for their tanks, so even if, that's not the point.
    10
  47.  @michaelharvey75  To start with: the Gepard is not even a tank. It's an anti aircraft gun vehicle, that can also hold some stingers, but overall, it's absurdly outdated with an effective range of the main anti air gun of only 4km. The last effective usage in a war was 40(!) years ago in the Falkland wars. When it comes to the stingers, military-wise it's a better idea to give those to soldiers who can at least hide well, while the Gepard is just to big for that. Not talking about, that just as the Gepard, most stingers NATO sends to Ukraine are also outdated and don't function well at all anymore.
    10
  48. A core problem of all those weapon delivers is, that NATO sends parts. But an army have to be a well crafted and oiled machine. Simply throwing parts of it at something won't do the job and massively decreased the effectivness and value of the parts.
    10
  49. Happens when you got something like time zones.
    10
  50. Reached the point where they can only lie further a long time ago...
    10