Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

@redalertsteve_ Pointless to tell them that dead is dead, no matter where the turret goes.
11
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Well, even in that time range was always the number one superior trait.
10
@stuartdollar9912 Unfortunately for the Wehrmacht it was destroyed in the east by the Soviets and what USA and UK fought was meager, ill equipped rests.
4
Well, Iraq was an US proxy (like Zelensky now) and then suddenly backstabbed and that after already having had heavy losses as that proxy. The moral was pretty much non existent and of course NATO fascism carpet bombed the country with 100.000 bombing flights, destroying all infrastructure and killing endless thousands of civilians. Quaility of Saddam's army was overall not good, for example the tanks they used had a firing range of under 3km, what is pretty much ridiculous low. They also had bad anti air and borderline not electonical warfare, so it was an easy slaughter of their former proxy for the NATO nazis (who by the way also had given Saddam those chemical weapons...).
4
It's a well working Assault Gun. For those who don't know: an assault gun is used to support infantery against other infantery and their cover and not to for example fight other tanks or vehicles, since it is generally less armored.
3
@shirghazaycowboys What doesn't help you, becaue those mines solely exist to slow you down so you are a sitting duck to be destroyed with ease.
2
@xaina222 BEFORE the endless billions from NATO fascism, yes. But without NATO you wouldn't even have had that coup.
2
@uknwarrior7980 Reality look like this, that surveillance of infantery or drones and whatever will see your position, than the old Tank will brought into place WAY outside your reach and just bombard you from there, while you can do shit, since you lack the range to get there and if you would try to get closer, well, that old tank isn't alone, you can't just storm there and shoot it. When it is shooting at you, you can be 99% sure, that many eyes are on your position and just wait for you to get out of your cover.
1
@sanityunknown6958 See, teh main vulnerability of weapon systems isn't meassured in armor but in range. For example even our most modern western tank still got a shit range in comparison to missiles and artillery system, not even starting with air force. When you look at a Russian standard Battle Group, it got 10 tanks - and 6(!) Anti Air units (vehicles, not stalking about what infantery is carrying around). They will also use drones and ECM, everything of that necessary for the whole group, incluind the tanks. Take the anti air away and your tanks are toast, no matter if they are from 1950 or 2020, when you fight an actual army and not just slaughter some goat herders in third world country.
1
@RazorsharpLT You do get, that those got a limited range and that they just stay outside of that, right? And while you could get closer... well, good luck.
1
Those drone ships are borderline worthless and mainly a threat for unarmed or very weekly armed ships. If they would be any worthwhile, you would see them sinking or at least damaging the actual warships with them and not go after landing ships and patrol boats. Without NATO (hiding behind their puppet) using them would not even possible. Russia COULD just shoot down the planes which guide these drones, but of course this would be used by our NATO fascists to esacalate further and thankfully Russia and China are not insane like our leaders. The main impact the other drones do is PR, because every drone will always make a video and this is used to creates spin. You see maybe 1% of this war on the internet and this 1% is dominated by drone videos. Only when you ignore this and think that those 1% are evertything and not just the smallest fraction, you would think that drones just changed everything. The major damage is done by artillery, missiles, heavy bombs. Drones do their part, especially when it comes to surveillance, but those videos you see from them hunting single soldiers, the military worth of this is borderline zero and keeps a war running that is destroying Ukraine forever, while giving up would have saved it.
1
@xxxlonewolf49 You do get that deluding yourself is one of the main reason why NATO fails again and again?
1
@TheLumberjack1987 Good luck against an enemy that can fire back and easily sink your carriers and destroy your airports plus thousands of anti air systems.
1
@williamzk9083 The thing why this won't work is, that the Banderas Regime got a massive lack of air defense and other combined arms units. Tanks, even modern ones, are just fishes in a barrel without being protected by other systems. Artillery, drones, missiles, air force, all will eat them for breakfast without that.
1
@suokkos So polices forces in the west constatnly commit warcrimes? Interesting.
1
@worldoftancraft NATO damned Europe, nothign else. It's a fascistic cannon fodder allianec that only serves the USA. Thanks to absolute corruption in European countries, the criminals at the top sell their countries and people to that evil.
1
@nemisous83 Can't even count 2.WW, because the german army died in the east against the soviets. USA, UK and France did very little beside mass murdering civilians with fire bombing cities.
1
Don't get what's so hard to understand about this. While it's impossible to see the details with the "fog of war" or what you want to call it, the overall picture is pretty clear. Russia started with a shock offensive to push the coup regime into giving up (what would have worked without NATO demanding to burn down Ukraine), combined with securing as much of th Donbass region as possible. To ensure this, a pinning operation was done by Kiev, with a few thousand soldiers, clearly not enough to take even a small city, even less a million city like Kiev, but enough to force the enemy to act and secure their capital - taking away from the ability to act in the south and east. Overall this would have been already over at this point, but then NATO started to pump billions of oil into that fire - clear goal: ruin Ukraine (to pillage it) with the hope to push Russia into chaos (to pillage it), however this should have worked. Since it was clear at this point, that with the coup regime being crazy enough to sacrifice a whole generation of men for this and NATO not stopping to pump weapons and money into it until they can't, Russia switched to a defensive attrition warfare. Overall they made a fortress out of the controlled regions they cared for (Kharkiv obvioulsy not part of it, since they did almost nothing there and a simple look on the map shows, why: to hold it wasn't worth it, but massively increased the length of the frontline = bad strategy). It's likely that they would have loved to hold Kherson city, since they got the city with near to no fight at the start and they hold it well even with the massively disadvantage of that 100m wide river in the back, but when the attacks on the dam began, the risk became to high and civilians had to be evacuated anyway, from which point on defending the city became rather pointless for the disadvantage the river in the back came with. So we got these two "victories" of the coup regime, which pretty much just were in areas Russia gave up, one because there was no reason to hold it and shortening the frontline was strategically much better. The other, because the risk of flodding was to high and of course using the River FOR you, instead of having it against you was strategically much better, though in that case it was still a hard decision to give a mainly undamage city to the peopel who are known for abusing them as cover, leading to its destruction. After this, we got a massively fortified frontline on Russian side, from which the war the NATO/Banderas army down with the main focus on limiting own losses. They got nothing to hurry and what is nicer for a side than the enemy creating a shooting gallery for you, by moving his troops in front of your artillery (and so on) over and over again? The fall of Bakhmut and alike, those are just side effect of the attrition, that the coup regime even with all the NATO mone and weapons can't even hold a city anymore against some mercenaries, even though they pump tenthousand of soldiers into it (what is insane enough, a cauldron is one of no the worst position you can be in, to walk into one on purpose is just... insane).
1
@alek9195 And NATO hides behind Ukraine. NATO openly joinig would make it much easier for Russia. It doesn't just sink and destroy all the NATO equipment in and around Ukraine, because it avoids escalation, but when NATO openly attacks, those are all free game.
1
Pointless to tell them. They are brainwashed idiots.
1
@paulbedichek5177 Their anti tank weapons are far better, yes.
1
@jonathanbaird8109 Kid, you are brainwashed and throwin a grenade into an empty tank is nothing special. The majority of destroyed tanks to you see are Ukrainian tanks, their own and sent from NATO. And yes, Russian weapon systems got zero problem to destroy them, why should they? It's as easy as destroy the Leopards and alike.
1
@COLT6940 You mean when shooting at goat herders who can only fire back with AK rifles, then go back into their green zone and have lunch in their own McDonalds, eh? Yeah, helps when you are just some Nazi army who slaughters people who can't fight back. The specialty of the USA - while still unable to actually win.
1
@rayquaza1245 Yeah, that's like bragging that you can beat up a five year old, mainly making your a psychopath Saddem was a western puppet, when his masters who had given him all these chemical weapons to attack Iran with, suddenly went against him, carpet bombing his country. None of the soldiers had even the will to fight this, when the US fascists just ran weeks of bombing campaigns to destroy the whole country. Russia could by the way do that, too, easily, they are just not mass murderous fascists like the USA.
1
@Mrstrangert392 Even on paper it wasn't bigger than Ukraine's forces, it had been at war with Iran and had a moral from pretty much zero, many fleeing the conflict or giving up with ZERO support from the outside. Ukraine would have been done for even faster and with much less destruction than the brutal mass murder the NATO fasscists commited against their former puppet, but NATO - as usual - kept Ukraine burning. Ukraine would have given up and wouldn't be a dead corpse, further and further raped by NATO.
1
@olafkunert3714 They obviously couldn't even beat Iran and that with all the support they got from NATO, including chemical weapons (yes, those were given to Iraq by the west).
1
@xsu-is7vq Also because the Iraqi army had close to zero will to fight back and no support at all from anyone. Take NATO fascism away and what is left of Ukraine? - Actually more than today, because then they would have given up, too and not be burned to the ground by NATO.
1
@allangibson8494 Russia NEVER gave ANY time of time table, kid. That nonsense comes from you Nazis, no one else.
1
@aymonfoxc1442 You clearly go no clue of both wars, that's the main problem.
1
@maxo.9928 There is no difference, when a giant Nazi army suddenly attacks you from behind with brutal carpet bombing.
1
@timonsolus Russia didn't want any of that violence, that was the point. That's why they wanted Minsk 2, but of course the idea that NATO fascism would ever go for peace is absurd. Odd that Russia still didn't learn that, but they likely think that we are normal people and not evil demons as proven since hundreds of years of world wide mass murder.
1
@xsu-is7vq So 80's tech is pin point destroying targets 1000km away?
1
@PaulVerhoeven2 By what meassure? When Russia started its intervention, it came in with how many soldiers? 150k? 200k? That's FAR less than what NATO fascism rolled in with an that with carpet bombing of the whole country from the very start, something Russia clearly is not going for, since it didn't want to destroy Ukraine - sad enough, nothing the NATO Nazis care for, who want to see Ukraine just as dead as Iraq.
1
@luna-hw9li It was a push over army and Ukraine itself would likely even have been smart enough to give up. Than NATO fascists came in and forced them to continue, ruining Ukraine forever. Oh, and regarding Ukraine: don't forget that by all teh carpet bombing, US fascism simply creaetd ISIS and kept burning down the whole middle east with it, having no plan beyond their mass murder, as usual.
1
@luna-hw9li There was zero support from NATO. NATO clearly wants to see Ukraine as dead as possible, that's what all the weapons are for. When you get in a streetfight and someone throws a knife into the ring, they don't want to see you win, they want to see blood and death. NATO would love to see Russia failing, but if this doesn't work, at least the death of Ukraine by their 'gifts' is the minimum they want to have. Of course without the eastern and southerin regions, pillaging Ukraine isn't that much of a good deal.
1
@SgtBeltfed Russia started with MUCH less soldiers than Ukraine had and still dominated it in every way to the point Ukraine would have given up. Then NATO came in, leading to the insanity to sacrifice the whole country, leading to rising Russian losses, sure, you can't have zero losses against hundredthousand fanatics fed with hundred billions in dollars by NATO, but way worse: detonating Ukrainian losses. Something NATO could never carry, if it where their own, but who cares about half a million dead Ukrainians, right? Clearly not the NATO Nazis.
1