Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

  1.  @orion3253  When I was young in Germany in 80s all Germans were convinced it would take around 4 weeks for Soviets to take West Germany. Four weeks. To prevent such total collapse NATO used nuclear mines and planned to simply blow up large portions of Germany. Other plans called for nuking deep inside Soviet lines - thus Soviets had multiple shadow bridges few km from real bridges. As for Afghanistan, after Soviets left the government survived for almost 3 years. When US left the government made it almost three weeks. Think about it. And if you ever ask Taliban about the two, they will say how much respect they had for Soviets and how little for US - seen it on camera - while in US sitting next to US veteran.
    5
  2.  @m1a1abramstank49  Ukraine lost more than 2x as many tanks as Russia - 1000s of lighter vehicles. well over 100k troops killed. It was like war thunder - you should look at videos from failed UA offensive in Kherson - 100s of wrecks. 1000s killed. All seen from a Russian drone. Look at all recent UA videos from your favorite channels - do you see lots of UA tanks? No? Where did they go? Why do you see F-150 with makeshift rocket system used on a helicopter? Why so many trucks? What happened to their tanks?
    5
  3. Russian engineering. Takes very little time to mop up any NATO tanks.
    3
  4. Errrr, that is wrong explanation at 1:00. During WWII there were no IFVs - they had open top IPCs. I.e. taxis. In 1945 there were only IPCs. And in 1950 there were only IPCs with closed roof. NO IFV. BMP-1 was world's first IFV. Again incorrect at 1:25 -- the pick of a main gun for BMP-1 was very controversial at the time... And this is by a Museum??? Come on. Shame. 1:57 --- the main gun of BMP-1 did not "soon become obsolete" - it took like more than 2 decades... hello??? HEAT ammo??? Anyone???
    2
  5. Not very easy - T-90 has a compartment in the turret but still carousel - they would need new auto loader like the French. But that means huge turret - UA actually tried that and the thing is huge.
    2
  6.  @drewschumann1  Sure after 1990s when there was no Soviet Union, but say in 1985 the idea was to totally use nukes - 100s of them right away - NATO planned to use over 300 nukes and Soviets over 200. There was not even close to the number of NATO troops in Germany to stop Warsaw pact advance - in conventional war NATO would easily be pushed all the way to Spain. The advantage was in many instances 5:1 or more.
    2
  7.  @bear76009  There was FAR more respect for Soviet Puppet than for US puppet. Soviet Puppet fought hard when Soviets left - what did US puppet do? They folded immediately. Their president running with bags of cash.
    2
  8.  @bear76009  For being mopped up they sure kill a mountain of mops ;) By same account US got mopped up in Vietnam.
    2
  9. Yeah but each of these aligators probably killed dozens of Ukrainian vehicles costing dozens of millions and probably well over 100 lives.
    2
  10.  @puma2334  Stugna is a copy of Kornet - its a Russian / Soviet system. Its a good system. But I would not go as far as to say Kornet and its many copies are "the best".
    1
  11. By far biggest killer of armor is artillery. Here Russia has huge advantage and thus inflicted huge losses on Ukraine whom has very few tanks left and now is mostly light infantry.
    1
  12. People do not understand Russian tactics at all. For mobile war in the beginning Russia used TINY force. In a tiny force you have no space for infantry - light one. So everyone gets a tank or APC as force multiplier. Imagine you have 9 soldiers. You can have them as infantry - 9 dudes or as three tanks or a tank and say APC with 3 extra infantry. I think only a fool would pick 9 infantry men. After 1st month Russia changed tactics to artillery fight and started to immediately win big time.
    1
  13. But why is Russian tactics obsolete? Combined arms is a tactics employed since mid WWII - its not exactly new. Russian tactics for the last 6 months plus has been more modern or very old - depending on point of view. They heavily rely on artillery, drones, and limited armor assaults. This has caused horrendous casualties on UA side, at least 4x to 6x Russian losses. Also this has caused massive losses in armor and equipment on UA side - at least 2x Russian losses.
    1
  14.  @drewschumann1  Clearly military thought the same way as they would not have a nuclear minefield and plans to escape beyond the pyrenes.
    1
  15.  @drewschumann1  Oh this is easy - look at Iraq / Saudi Arabia / Afghanistan / Syria. You better slow down with popcorn it could get unhealthy! Most NATO tanks destroyed were US made -- i.e. M1 Abrams. Destroyed == no longer economical to fix.
    1
  16.  @begood5085  yes UA copy of Kornet. There are like dozen copies world wide. There is a copy made in Iran and North Korea.
    1
  17. Not really - German tanks were indeed quite good - they combined decent protection with good mobility and good accessibility / visibility. They indeed were in the beginning of the war by far the best tanks. This changed on later when T-34 entered the field - but original T-34 also had a LOT of issues - it was later in 1942 that these issues were ironed out.
    1
  18. Same for UA side. Most equipment through was destroyed.
    1
  19. That is now happening to Ukraine - most of their attacks are now shattered by Russian artillery before they even get to the half line. Most Ukrainian soldiers now die before even seeing a Russian!
    1
  20. But are museums having any clue? We know Russian losses up to +- 100 soldiers. We have reports of losses from UA side from western MDs. UA losses are through the roof. So is Russian tactics so bad?
    1
  21.  @dankengine5304  Current Russian and allied losses are 16000 rounded plus minus 100. Thanks to these grave counting guys paid by the British.
    1