Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Ryan McBeth" channel.

You forgot about 2A29 AT gun... 100mm similar shell - widely used in the Ukrainian conflict. Only difference is length. Also Type 69 uses 100mm...
5
All Soviet and later Russian IFV had AT missiles on them as well.
4
@smyers820gm It had sand in the rear doors when driven to battle ;) BMP-1 was so terrible NATO scrambled to have one just like it.
2
@jevgenijjankovskij8537 It is as per manual - i.e. you supposed to fill them in with sand. Alternative was empty.
2
Is it me or Russia did a good job so far of SAED by eliminating a lot of Ukrainian radars using supersonic HARM missiles? Also Ukraine used a lot of slower US made HARM missiles to not so great effect. So what would sending F-16s help with? Other then maybe keeping UA airforce a bit more in the air nothing much. BTW 2:18 is totally false - a LOT of Ukrainian HARM missiles have been used and most did not hit their target. Russians shown downed HARM missiles as well. 5:56 - Ukraine uses a LOT of 105mm tanks with same ammo as M60! It uses T-55s with L7 gun, it is sent Leopard 1s with same L7 - at number over 100 in 2024 (if war lasts that long) This guy does not have a CLUE what his is talking about!
1
Depends which ones - I would assume it would be quite close to BMP-2 and touch inferior to BMP-3 while clearly superior to BMP-1 in most situations. Its main drawback is its luck of amphibious ability and heavy weight.
1
@afcgeo882 All Russian / Soviet IFV are amphibious, i.e. BMP-2 and BMP-3 are amphibious as well as new stuff based on Armata family, both wheeled and tracked. BMP-3 is superior in almost all missions to all versions of M2. Its newer design. All armata platform vehicles, which are not accepted into service and a bit experimental promise to be vastly superior to any M2 in all known configurations of battlefield - i.e. there is no situation where M2 could be considered superior. They have better armor, firepower, sensors and are amphibious. One can argue for say crew comfort but that appears to be at most a tie. Again, this is a bit unfair comparison as M2 is simply old.
1
That is not entirely true.... 2A29 is a 100mm AT gun that both Ukraine and Russia uses.... 100s of them are in use on both sides of the war - mainly by 2nd rate units. The shell is 100 × 910 mmR The shell of a D10 main gun on T-55 series tank is 100 × 695 mmR I.e. they only differ in length - but otherwise quite identical! Plot thickens with upgrades and changes to T-55 - such as T-55A and type 69 which could use a smoothbore 100mm main gun!
1
@smyers820gm It is what it is, when introduced it was an excellent weapon with nothing coming close in NATO inventory. But that was a long, long time ago. MiG-25 was revolutionary aircraft but it was misrepresented by NATO from sat photos, it was not heavy maneuverable fighter but super fast interceptor. T-72 was a great tank when introduced - it was a budget version after the world's first tank with composite armor, autoloader and smooth bore gun - the uber revolutionary T--64. But the budget version was not that bad - its A version that came at the same time as original Abrams had better armor than M1 by a whopping 100mm, not to mention better gun. Hind to this day is a great helicopter with many upgrades available, nicknamed the flying tank - awesome machine with unique ability to transport few troops as well. You mentioned all excellent designs. If you were looking for failures, that would be T-62 tank, which was only marginally better than T-55. Multiple tanks from the IS family of heavy tanks etc. generally stuff accepted into service was good or very good. A lot of stuff that was excellent did not get approved due to very high price or was produced in very limited numbers.
1
@MaxCroat Well, T-62 is a victim of being in between two great designs, and very close to these, T-55 - the first MBT and T-64 - the first tank with composite armor among other things. Between these giants T-62 looks... small. The gun was indeed powerful but at the time HEAT rounds came out for T-55 which allowed the 100mm gun to deal with all NATO tanks. The 115mm was better at infantry support but the 115 caliber was "odd". Armor package was touch better than T-55 but not huge improvement. T-62 was in a way an incremental upgrade of T-55. One can view T-90 in the same light, its better than T-72 and its upgrades but only in a tiny way, there is nothing really revolutionary about it - its a stop gap measure, which most likely T-62 was as well.
1