Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Grid 88" channel.

S-400 is way, way better - it is far more modular, can deal with more targets. More missile types, more of everything. It can engage from much further. Also S-400 is battle proven against at peer enemy. S-400 holds record for longest kill.
51
Alligator is more the a decade newer design. It is newer tech. It is way, way more survivable then Apache. Not just ejection seats and lots more armor but also no rear rotor - so it cannot easily get disabled by hit there. That alone makes it far more harder to kill. All other systems are at par or close enough. Just survivability and price are the big differences.
5
History also shows Iraqis lost 60 M1A1 tanks to ISIS pickups. Clearly Abrams sucks.
3
This is not exactly apples to apples - F-35 is a heavy long range strike aircraft. F-16V is a light, cheap fighter. A better comparison would be F-15EX. Comparisons are a bit misleading as it would be system fight, Russians in defense and US in attack. Also Su-35 does not have a true PESA radar - its a AESA - PESA hybrid. Both in BVR and VVR Su-35 has clear edge.
3
LOL!
3
In which case S-400 is soooooo much better than Patriot. Its not even close.
3
@SH_K LOL - what did Ukraine destroy with their few storm shadow hits? Did they hit the port with navy? Nope. Maybe b/c S-400 protects that. Did they hit their love bridge? No. Maybe b/c all missile attacks failed due to S-400. And just how many missiles hit Belgorod after air defenses were beefed up? None. Only artillery. Yet we have movies of Kiev being hit with lots of missiles - hypersonic has like 100% success rate and even regular cruise missiles fly with ease.
3
@SH_K LOL, Ukraine never had 100s of ATCMS or Storm Shadow available ;) We actually have how many US / UK sent (some where also from France). S-400 cannot be everywhere. However, where it is, it performs very well - it has the record for longest confirmed kill (Su-27 over Kiev). There is no proof provided by anyone of supposed large number of destroyed assets - we know Ukraine whom was hit by 1000s of missiles has major damage but to show it is 10 years in prison. I wonder why ;)
3
@SH_K They are fine. Turned on and working. What are you yapping about? Ukraine is loosing the war and now daily they down like 20 Russian aircraft and destroy 100 tanks. Where are these patriot systems defending against Russian missiles I ask?
3
@ulikemyname6744 Patriot was never used in any at peer conflict till few weeks ago. It was modernized of course but it has a lot of drawbacks as US was never in need to have potent air defenses. This relatively few systems were made & not a lot of $$$ invested. This is totally understandable given the size of US air force.
2
@ulikemyname6744 US sector is directed into other areas. Russia has shown in Ukraine it has lots of missiles and they work very well - for example, the Iskander missile system has a lot of innovations for such short range system - such as penetration aids. Add to this supersonic stuff or long range air to air missiles. None of these systems have a US equivalent. Why is that? Why US does not have similar systems? Kalibr is a cruise missile family is superior to Tomahawk US equivalent as it has supersonic ability in the last leg of the trip + it uses much more jam resistant Glonass system of sat navigation. As you can see when comparing apples to apples US does not look that great.
2
@ulikemyname6744 How do you know fail rate for Kalibr cruise missile? How do you know fail rate for Tomahawk? Accuracy is the same. The both use GPS - why would that be even a question. Main selling point of Kalibr over Tomahawk is better ability to penetrate defenses.
2
Not true. T-72 original has 780hp engine. Then various upgrades have various engines. It is now far more likely for random T-72 engine to be more than 780 than actual 780.
2
@ConductorDon Actually T-62M has better fire control than Leopard 1 A5 - T-62M has just slightly worse system than M1 A2.
2
@SH_K I do - works very well - how many missiles hit anything? None. So why are you in doubt?
2
S-400 provides ballistic missile defense. For even better defense you have S-500.
1
@adelbertantonio2937 You know what is really pathetic? It's people like you that believe in such BS.
1
@ulikemyname6744 Most advanced missiles are made in Russia - so I doubt they are less precise than what US has. China is doing very well, if they are not better than US now, they will be very soon.
1
@ulikemyname6744 So now you admit you do not know failure rates for both missiles. Then you claim you know how to do research ... based on inability to find any info. Then you claim some Ukrainian source of 60%. Kalibr missile is from 1994, Tomahawk is from 1983. Sure, Tomahawk is a bit older but I would not exactly say Kalibr is new. I mean it has been in service now for almost 30 years. It was also extensively modified & tested. Since you have no evidence to the contrary we can assume both missiles have same or similar failure rate. Then we can simply look at the stats and we can easily see Kalibr is better. As to US killing others - US killed over a million people (direct and indirect), mostly civilians in the last 25 or so years. If their intention is not to kill civilians they have failed rather miserably. Compare to US, Russian war in Ukraine sees very few civilian casualties, does that imply Russian weapons are more precise? Or Russians care more?
1
@ulikemyname6744 So wait, nothing in military world is advertised, yet you somehow know stuff? No one knows, its all top secret except you? How would US know or Ukraine of failure rates & why would they tell the truth? The same thing was used in WWII - where you intentionally mislead the enemy. When V1s were hitting London center, UK said that they were missing. Come on, some historical context here. In the 1970s dogfights we have a very good performance by MiG-21 vs. F-4. In Vietnam US lost (with SV) over 10000 aircraft including helicopters. How is that dominance of the US? Israel always owned Arabs in every shape and form - why do you think its even there? Arabs performed poorly when using US supplied weapons as well - so what? Yugoslavia where super old S-125 managed to down US 117? In Iraq where they lost 60 M1 tanks to some ISIS pickup trucks during battle of Mosul? There is zero data for true ability of Tomahawk or Kalibr. All we have is what is disclosed publicly by both sides, and here we see Kalibr is better. Claims by US or Ukraine are meaningless - same as claims by Russia of poor performance of Tomahawk over Syria. If we trust both sources we see both missiles are just terrible, As to US killing of massive number of civilians there are plenty of sources that add up to over a million. US had no qualms about attacking weddings, school children or even hospitals. All these were documented. As to when the missiles became available, it has multiple variants. Some variants entered service before others. If you look at Kalibr whole family, some of these variants were already available for export in 1997. You are referring to the latest ground attack variant first combat use in 2015. This would be like talking about latest version of Tomahawk and saying its a new system.
1
@bekeneel Sure it can - it is just not cost effective. A cheaper short range system is used. Maybe short range missile for S-400 in emergency.
1
@renetanchico6901 yes, I know all these things. Do you know that Russians and Chinese have missiles right now with ranges well beyond 200km? So US is playing catchup. Tomakawk is a slow cruise missile that is sub sonic and flies low. Kalibru is a proven, probably more than tomahawk i.e. It was used more times in actual combat cruise missile that has supersonic terminal attack phase for some variant. I.e. In say anti ship role They are vastly superior to tomahawk. Not to mention they fly lower. There is nothing special about them being shot down. Tomahawk is easier to shot down so if they were used they would get shot down. Russians shot down and captured almost intact on video storm shadow cruise missile that is much newer than tomahawk.
1
@radislavrashev7266 LOL, F-16s block 15 cannot see that far - they would use link & will fire from much closer. But the question is - will they fire at all or be scrapped by then. Russia can engage from well over the AIM 120 range & this was proven in Ukraine with lots of aircraft downed. Patriot system has low range as well - it has proven very ineffective in actual combat in Ukraine. The reason why Ukraine is getting old stuff is partly availability partly an excuse for when they get scrapped.
1
Not even point blank can penetrate, i.e. unless you hit weak zone T-72BM3 cannot be penetrated from even 50m. Germans did tests on older T-72s in early 90s and withdrawn remaining Leo 1 from service.... b/c L7 could not do the job.
1
Difference summarized, Abrams is as superior to T-72 as T-14 is to Abrams.
1
LOL!
1
The fight would be using Soviet style doctrine - i.e. Su-35 would be in air defense role and F-35 would be on the offense. Thus Su-35 would see and strike F-35 first - due to ground radar & be supported by S-400 batteries engaging F-35. Result would be Soviet doctrine of "no one flies". I.e. attacks will be limited to stand off weapons - such as ballistic or cruise missiles.
1
@BFOP15 Just to be fair, T-62 is also all steel. And T-64A is the worlds first composite armor tank. You looking at Arab losses from Egypt side - where they out run their anti air umbrella (and later stopped). Syria took massive losses from actual tank combat due to simple stupidity / luck of training. Yes, T-62 was a good tank, could match or surpass anything Israel had. Also one has to highlight apparent luck of Arab coordination of the war effort.
1
T-72Bm3 mentioned here is vastly superior to Leo 1. Its not even remotely close. The smooth bore gun on T-72BM3 is light years ahead of the rifled L7 on Leo 1. T-72 with her better sensors should detect Leopard 1 first and can engage even from extreme ranges - even with missiles at 5km and main gun over 3km - this is not exactly possible in Europe - but demonstrates range difference. Leo 1 can only try from the sides or rear. Front shot would need to be very luck - like drivers hatch.
1
@mwtrolle I disagree with almost everything you said. It is simply not true. One has to point out that T-72BM3 is much, much, much newer tank design that Leopard 1 A5. Since it is a much newer upgrade it has much newer design choices - some of these are just few years old. Even late WWII era tanks are able to punch through sides of modern MBT or rear. This is non issue. Stabilization and sensors are way better on T-72 BM3 than Leo 1 A5 - come on, they are decades newer ;) Most of the crews are alive and well - where do you have BS info that most T-72 crews area dead? from what? Covid? Ukraine lost far more crews procentage wise than Russia. Leo 1 A5 was made obsolete by T-72 by Germany. So not that great tool anymore. Why do you think T-72s that fight for a year are in bad maintenance state???? WHY? Do you think no one touched a tank in a year of fighting? LOL! 1A5 is going to shoot at targets and is at disadvantage here vs. any more modern MBT due to its smaller main gun. Please let me know in which way Leopard 1 A5 is better than Leopard 2 A4 - the only thing I can think of is lighter weight and thus ability to not get stuck with ease. 1A5 numbers are low. They do not have more than 200 available. Its a joke. If you said they can deliver 2000 quickly that would be impressive. Yes, that would be a problem for Russia. But 200 old tanks is a non issue. I am not sure why you are such a fan of Leo 1 A5 - the tank design was of a glass canon that was though of as a good idea at the time of construction. It was a bad idea. Others did not repeat the mistake of Germany and their older tanks were relevant longer. Leo 1 was a mistake.
1
@mwtrolle Umm, you got your tanks mixed up - Leo 2 was made to fight T-72 ;) Leo 1 was made obsolete by T-72. Please note the difference between number 1 and number 2.
1
@mwtrolle In short there is not enough tanks to make a dent. There are only 1200 Leo 1 A5 and most cannot be taken as they would need to be replaced. Just under 200 Leo 1 A5 have been promised. Maybe next year - if Ukraine wants to fight more - another 100 can be scavenged and maybe another 100 modern tanks. For a grand total of only 200 per year - what a joke. There are no more than about 120 modern tanks promised. And they are only called "modern" as they are not ancient. Most "modern" western tanks promised are weaker than T-72BM3.
1
@mwtrolle Once again, Leopard 1 is Germany first post WWII tank. Its design started in 1956. The tank idea - of a glass cannon made sense in 1950 - 1960 time frame but was a road to nowhere. I.e. tank quickly became obsolete. Any T-72B and above is light years ahead of Leo 1 A5. Upgraded T-72As are also much better tanks than Leo 1 A5. I.e. we are talking about real tanks vs. glass canons. You do not understand that the design principle of Leo 1 was that at the time it was though that a lot of armor is useless given modern Heat ammo. So Leo 1 was instead build with speed and minimal armor. This proven to be a mistake. Also Leo 1 cannot pack a bigger gun. Its a nice old tank but no match for much more modern T-72. T-72 design started in 1967 - it is a whopping 11 years newer tank - when tanks tech was still moving relatively fast. The reason Leo 1 was not upgraded more is that it reached its max in 1990s or so - when it was seen as obsolete with arrival of newer versions of T-72. Germany did a test where L7 of Leo could not penetrate front of T-72. A round for T-72 on the other hand when through one Leo and through another one behind it. As for Russia and their tech - I wonder how these bastards got into space first - did they reverse engineer western tech? Or how did they build T-64A - worlds first tank with composite armor, smooth bore gun, laser range finder etc. I am sure these Soviets must have found some laser pointer somewhere ;)))) I wonder why it took these primitive British tankers a whole decade to find a laser pointer ;))) Soviet Union and now Russia is on the vanguard of technological development of tanks - i.e. they are best of the best.
1
Leopard 1 was made obsolete by T-72.... So why even compare? And this is basic T-72. Why compare to modernized T-72? This is like comparing Fiat to Ferrari.
1
LOL, yeah like wait, did Germany take Moscow or did Soviets take Berlin! Eastern tech for the win!
1
LOL! Buy German car then ;))))
1
@Galomortalbr You do know that T-90 is just heavily upgraded T-72, right? T-90M is a decent tank, but it is true that it is nothing special at all. It is a stop gap measure before T-14 can come online.... and given the price of T-14 we will see T-90M and upgrades for a while still.
1
@Galomortalbr Depends on version - T-90A has actually cast turret in many cases. Only later on they upgraded to wholly welded turret. T-90 cannot be much more armored than T-72 as weight is similar. Shape is similar etc. The turret concept is supposedly from T-80. Hull is identical to T-72.
1
@Galomortalbr T-90 is re-named T-72BM - only T-90A started to have a better turret. T-90 has some better sensors from T-80 than T-72BM but otherwise they are almost identical. Actual sub versions matter a LOT, for example, T-72BM3 is marginally better (when with stronger engine - even here we have differences in same general group) than T-90A in almost all situations. So when comparing T-90 and T-72, what do you mean exactly, original T-72 Ural vs. original T-90 - than definitely yes, Ural had all steel on the turret and T-90 has cavity & composites in addition to better engine, ERA, thermals etc. etc. etc. T-90 original is definitely not re-skinned T-72 original.
1
This is very hard to say which is better as in some case one is better vs. the other. Also there is price per unit consideration and ability to do sorties. In standard tanks are not defended scenario A-10 would be better vs. single Su-25 just b/c it carries more ammo. However, if tanks start to be defended and price per unit is factored Su-25 starts to look better.
1
@mwtrolle LOL!
1
This was tested in early 1990s by Germany and it was found that Leopard 1 is no longer adequate thus it was removed from service.
1
@mwtrolle Still, performance wise there is no comparison, T-72BM3 gun is wastly more accurate than old L7 on Leopard 1 A5. Plus T-72BM3 is virtually invulnerable to fire from L7 from the frontal arc, while 125mm smoothbore will fly modern ammo through at least 2 Leopards front to back. Sensors same thing. This is like comparing T-55 to M1A1.
1
@ulikemyname6744 S-400 never engaged F-35. Never. S-400 is proven against peer enemy - heck even S-300 PU is. S-400 downed Su-27 over Kiev (on video) at the beginning of the war from Belarus. Longest ground to air kill.
1
@SH_K LOL, I think they were downing like 10 F-16s yesterday, didn't you hear?
1
@SH_K 3:1 was a bit unfair. No one said T-90 are indestructible.
1
@evaristendabanye any western source will confirm what I said. Just Google it.
1
@evaristendabanye air defenses cannot be everywhere at once. Notice how Ukraine got pummeled. Despite strongest defenses entirely in Europe. Imagine target was super soft, like France. Or UK. Or mid range, like Germany in 2022 - now soft as well.
1