Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1.  @TheTrueAdept  The Serbs were totally overwhelmed by a factor of 100 to 1 and had outdated tech. So your idea of similar combat is a joke. The Soviet plan was of deep thrusts with heavy armor very quickly. How are you going to attack these columns? Most of your aircraft in nearby bases are gone. What remains has to fight against enemy airforce that is still left and AA systems. There will be very little time to play some kind of a game of SEAD - your A-10s will attack enemy armor formations that are smaller and bigger will get nuked. Losses from air defense will be huge but you have zero time to play with HARMS etc - you will throw what remaining air force you have to attack enemy tank formations. Survival rate for US Hawk systems was minimal as well - Soviets would be the ones using HARM missiles more as there would be less tanks to deal with for them. Overall situation after 3 weeks would be dozens of millions dead, about 70% of Soviet forces and allies killed and around 95% of US and allies killed. At this point most of central Europe would be a pile of rubble and main problem for Soviets would be logistics of getting anything to their troops on French frontier. The bridges over Odra river in Poland were not to be taken out by US air force but by nukes. There were stubs placed to have at least 3 replacement bridges setup for each "regular" bridge around a mile away. US planned to use around 300 nukes and Soviets around 150. Tactical grade up to 100kn. No one in the US army had any illusions they can stop the Soviet armor with conventional forces and no plans were made to that account - you can ask anyone from the US army and they will confirm that - certainly you think you are better then US command.
    4
  2. How about 2A3 Kondensator 2P - leave it to the Russians to put battleship gun on a tank chassis. Say hello to 16".
    3
  3. But Ukraine has nothing else.
    3
  4. Challenger 2 could not toss its turret as its of such low quality it broke apart ;)
    3
  5. Yeah but M1 is more or less one shot one kill while T-90 can take multiple hits and keep on going. The protected area on T-90 is far larger than on Abrams that has huge weak zones. Also T-90 is much cheaper and thus far better tank.
    3
  6.  @guaposneeze  LOL, it shows that Soviets had fewer ships and US has rather powerful air-force.
    3
  7.  @TheTrueAdept  I studied WWII for over 20 years. I know published armor specs of most modern tanks from memory. You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Bigger problem for radar operator would be blackout created by dozens of nukes going off every day within short proximity of each other then worrying about enemy HARM. It is unlikely a single US base in Europe will be still operational after 24h thus most aircraft that survived will operate off highways and operations with HARMs will be seen as a joke.
    3
  8. I would not say that - T-90MS as seen in Ukraine is the best armored tank vs. M1A2 or Leo 2 A6.
    2
  9. This tank is such a terrible piece of junk even Indian army does not want it and buys T-90. There is little hope for any upgrades - they should just end the project & start a new one with lessons learned from this total failure. This tank is so bad it makes Challenger 2 look good - which is usually hard to do for any modern MBT.
    2
  10. Yeah but T-90 outlasts all western tanks in Ukraine.
    2
  11. You did not mention its auxiliary role in city fighting. Before urban combat kits were the thing, we had shilka.
    2
  12. Russians have plenty. They also have AI drones so Ukraine signal blockers are useless.
    2
  13. Problem is how. small drones are like birds. They can even look like them.
    2
  14.  @cyruslupercal9493  Yep, fixed. What is the latest excuse why Russians are advancing? Obviously not artillery. So now what?
    2
  15. They have cheap cameras all over the tank. You can exit through front or back - I think they have door at the back. Actual.... Door. This thing is way better than say M1 or Leo when you know a single drone will take you out.
    2
  16. This gun is heavier than US counterpart but offers much better range despite being older. Excellent design for its age - best in the world.
    2
  17. ATGM operated by infantry since the early days were designed so that infantry does not run away. They are last resort item. They are not a solution - they are a band aid. Real problems for tanks are on aircraft - large big weapons that are heavy and powerful. These can be made to penetrate active protection via brute force.
    2
  18. Russia heavily innovates. Turtle tank is stop gap measure - an assault gun. It clear mines, is heavily resistant to drones and provides a lot of jamming. Ukraine does not have advanced drones such as Lancet, that can attack targets autonomously via designation. Main role of turtle shell is to prevent drone from hitting weak spot with its 300mm HEAT RPG projectile. Then again armor package on T-90M is getting better - hit by 4 drones tank was still OK - cannot say the same thing of anything made in the west where usually a single drone is enough to take out M1 or Leo 2.
    2
  19. I doubt anyone would want the land back - NATO had plans to retreat into Spain behind the mountains. If it got that far it is almost certain there would be strategic exchange and there will not be US left to have troops come from. Most Soviet plans stopped somewhere around France - for both risk of full nuclear exchange and due to logistics.
    2
  20.  @TheTrueAdept  NATO plans did not hinge at all on aviation as Soviets made sure that nothing would fly. NATO plans hinged on massive use of nukes. Like 100s. There were nuclear mines all over western Germany. There were not plans for any convoys - it would be over in a month or less. Germany would be taken as well as Austria. After that it would be either end of the world or Soviets would move back. Germany would be a nature preserve. Your aviation would anyways be top priority in the begging and would get nuked on day 1 for both sides. Same as comments above from people manning actual US Hawk systems - they knew they would be a prime target.
    2
  21. Russia is now coming back to the 57mm, this time with a single 57mm, with programmable ammo. Also IFV will get 57mm.
    1
  22. On paper it is easily the best tank in the world under most combat situations. It is an ambitious modern design of a next generation tank. But it need to move from paper to reality. That may take some time & some combat experience - which may not come easily as capturing one would be a bonanza for the enemy.
    1
  23. They found the gas use of M1 and after they picked up their jaws from the desert floor decided to just blow them up.
    1
  24. @kieferkarpfen6897 No, they most definitely are not.
    1
  25. @kieferkarpfen6897  Leo 1 is museum tank. Please don't compare it to modern tanks.
    1
  26. They could. Same as they could (actually did a prototype) with auto loader in the turret like the French. It is simply price to effect.
    1
  27. Main weakness of this tank as well as K2 is very weak armor that is not protecting from more then 30 degree frontal arc. Armor is the thing that is hard to design in a tank. It is the hardest part. You can get the main gun, computers etc. buy the engine and design suspension but armor ... is special, like engines to an aircraft.
    1
  28. Russia developed special round with kevlar thread for drones. Can engage up to 100m away!
    1
  29. Best modern tank in the world - T-90MS - battle proven design - as seen in Ukraine! Armor for modern war is top notch - compare this for example to Leopard 2 A6 or even Abrams M1A2.
    1
  30. So how to fool western army you have 10 tanks not one? Just record noise of engine start and play it over 9 times. At the same time move your extra tanks where you are going to attack and start/ stop all at once so they think its only 1 ;)
    1
  31. A-10 is obsolete for at peer conflict, same as Su-25 is. It is useful to take on terrorist forces which do not have any AA or very limited AA. The reason it is obsolete on modern battlefield is its close proximity to the ground while other systems flying higher are available. Thus A-10 can be only used in limited fashion - something top brass does not like.
    1
  32. As delivered M1 had much weaker armor then contemporary to it T-72. By as much as 100RHA on the front. Also its gun was inferior in fire power. BUT quick upgrades changed that - T-72 last upgrade before Soviet Union collapsed was in 1989 - still holding an edge over upgraded Abrams. But then Soviet Union collapsed and no tank work was done for over a decade. Also T-72 and whole Soviet / Russian family was not very friendly to upgrades - in difference to western tanks, such as Leopard or Abrams. This forced Russia to move to T-14 - which is radically different design - there was simply not literal room to modify even further "Standard" Soviet Cold war tank. If Soviet Union did not collapse the obsolescence of T-72 would not be a real issue as their whole design program was set with much more frequent release of new tank designs, vs. the west that released new designs rarely - there are only plans to replace Leopard 2 in 15 years - which will give it more then half a century as a war machine (!!!).
    1
  33. Log is going to be added in T-14M. For now Russian crews will need to learn how to make friends with other crews to help them out of dirt they are stuck in.
    1
  34. Its more of a IFV with tank level protection and fire power. Hence the troops that can dismount - a whopping 6. That is comfortable level of BMP-1 (!!!). This IFV cross is causing a huge weakness in armor for its weight class - you simply cannot protect up to 10 (!) people with the same level as just 4 people in say Abrams tank. Or 3 people in say T-14 or even T-90 series. This forces the designers to concentrate on just the front of the vehicle with weak armor all around every other part supplemented by heavy ERA. A lot of modern western IFV are getting heavier so they may soon approach Merkava in capability and protection - thus maybe Israel was a pioneer here of a modern IFV.
    1
  35. Already do.
    1
  36. Tried that. Sort of works.
    1
  37. At 15 min you see Russians push a tank. At 17min you see US troops have same speed with a single track rolling. M1 is notorious for its bad suspension possibly due to weight - it even lost tracks during demonstrations. On the other hand wheeled vehicles are even weaker then tracked ones - yes some can loose a wheel or two and still keep going but loosing such wheel is very easy as compared to a track.
    1
  38. Well, new T-14 is more then the cost of fully upgrading 4 T-72B. Certainly fully decked out T-72B is no match for T-14, but 4 of them given current threats are enticing proposition. Heck, you can get roughly 2 T-90M for price of one T-14. There is a reason why Challenger's were not scrapped yet for something better - they are here and their replacement would cost money. Besides Brits love their terrible tanks - from WWII till today. They still will be using that rifled gun in 2040 claiming "HESH can kill a T-55, should one be stolen from a museum".
    1
  39. To all people using Moskva as an example, please, single event does not set up a pattern. We don't know if there were other engagements or what did exactly happen. Israeli destroyer Eilat was sunk from long range by first generation missiles fired by unexperienced crews. Same thing as US making fun out of Russia for downing their own planes - when few days later they do the same thing with their F-18.... These events do not prove one thing or another. They show that missiles are dangerous for ships. That friendly fire is a threat - not that both US navy and Russian air-force are incompetent.
    1
  40. Armor is still going to be uber weak. Its like heavily upgraded T-55 that is more roomy. There is a reason why quite better armored Polish T-72M1 (aka T-72A) is meeting resistance from attempts to upgrade - there is no way to upgrade the armor easily & it is already far better platform then M60. Russians have their T-72B that are upgraded ... but these are light years better base armor packages - on part roughly with M1A1 - certainly stuff you can work with to upgrade it further.
    1
  41. The defensive strategy of the west was based on more or less blowing up whole Germany with massive amounts of nukes. Together with Soviet weapons over 500 were to be used. After such a barrage even if Soviets continued they would earn a devastated land, worthless. They would loose lots of useful land. Victory for the Soviets would by very phyric - i.e. not worth the fight. There was also a danger of strategic nuclear exchange. As for conventional combat, west had zero chances - all they could do is delay till nukes were flying. Even then taking all of Germany would account for first few weeks. Germany that would be a giant pile of nuclear waste.
    1