Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. I say option a) Russia would not risk Kherson to be overrun. Ukraine just tried yesterday and lost like 800 men. So Russians may be few and far in between there, but they are armed top notch.
    28
  2. What exactly? They got smashed bad in these armored cars, are almost out of tanks and IFV.
    23
  3. Well, Iraqi tank crews were so poorly trained they could not hit huge Abrams tank from point blank range. Their infantry could not hit barn door from 100m with their AK47s. Realistically T-72A has no issues hitting stationary tank target from 2000m with about 80%+ probability on first shot. At least Polish T-72M1 (similar to A). Iraqis had a very hard time penetrating their own tanks with ammo they got - which was from 1960s. Essentially Iraqi T-72 could not penetrate cheeks of other T-72 from above 1500m. And we are talking here original T-72s.
    18
  4.  @ClassicCase  No, its not even close to T-72. Its main opponent was T-55 / T-62 series of tanks. It can compete with original T-72s or maybe up to A standard. After that its T-72 as overall way better tank in every role and configuration.
    17
  5. What about Ukrainian soldier bombing civilians in Donbass? Who made him do this?
    12
  6. There are no other tanks to "free up" Ukraine is running out of any and every tank. They have none "left" anywhere.
    12
  7.  @ArchOfficial  Wow, UA boots just exceeded total number of tanks Russia had as losses ;) Less than 100 vehicles of different types were loss both on the north and south flank of a successful Russian offensive to encircle the city (or what is left of it) of Avdiivka. Ukraine loosing 4 out of about 40 tanks they have is significant as it is a 10% loss of remaining fleet. They are also loosing other vehicles which they have no replacements for.
    9
  8.  @michael-gb3rn  Sure, the source said 200 killed so I added 600 for wounded.
    9
  9.  @kuanliu4253  Are you kidding - there are like 1000s of videos showing even live strikes on schools and markets in Donetsk! Every week about a dozen people get killed or at least hurt from UA attacks against strictly civilian targets.
    9
  10. Maybe if it was 200 years old, or at very least 100. But not 20. Heck, I would not hesitate to fire ammo from WWI in my 30 06. Same with my Mosin.
    8
  11. Leo 1 main weakness is luck of any armor making it unsuitable for any modern war. Up armored with say K-5 Panther would be significantly better tank vs. Leopard 1 today. This assumes same avionics. Later version of Leo 1 tried to at least partially fix armor issue by adding more of it, but it was still not a lot and slowed the tank down. Leo 1 is a total glass canon.
    7
  12. Sure, but its super thin armor makes it an example of a glass canon. It can engage stuff for sure and is better then nothing but not much better. I.e. its no match even for T-64BV. Also 105 not as good as 125 in fire support. Its basically a light tank.
    7
  13. Nah, this is just pro UA BS. T-62 is not that bad for back of the front duty for allied troops that are just training on tanks. They used anti ship missiles for like 2 months now. More BS. I heard about Russia running out of missiles 2 months ago.
    6
  14. No, Sherman or T-34.
    6
  15. There is always same number of troops - i.e. if you tank has crew of 10 it means that 7 are taken out of maintenance. I.e. a unit with say 52 tanks will have with maintenance same number of people regardless how many are in a tank. Hence Russian T-72 units have same number of troops as US Abrams tank units. Even if T-14 had (it does not) two man crew, it would mean just larger maintenance unit. There is no cheating.
    6
  16. What partisans? There are none to be seen. The main opponent is Ukrainian national guard that has no tanks and few javelins in light infantry role. Solution to defend against these guys for out numbered DPR forces was to simply add tank company to each BTG. How would UA light infantry attack enemy infantry supported by artillery and tanks????
    6
  17.  @EK-gr9gd  LOL, no ;) Germany did tests and its a NO.
    5
  18. This whole thing is a "pretend" to give tanks - not to really give tanks that will make a difference.
    5
  19. Yes, tank on tank are RARE, but infantry on tank is NOT RARE. This tank would get creamed by infantry & artillery. One reason why Poland did not upgrade its original T-72M tanks was weak armor. Only T-72M1s were upgraded. Russia upgraded their T-72Bs but difference from Ural (T-72M) to T-72B is like from here to the moon in armor. T-72B armor is similar to what Leopard 2 A4 has. T-72M is what T-55 has.
    5
  20. Well, one has to point out that NATO equipment would not have survived local treatment. I.e. its common in Africa to use a rifle as walking stick, sitting stick ,portable hammer etc. (all seen by me) I assume tanks and other equipment gets similar treatment - seen trucks that cannot go up hill as their engines are so worn they do not produce even fraction of HP of new.
    5
  21. To bad they will go against 40 Mista M2s that will fire 200+ shells back at them. In single salvo.
    5
  22. Still BMP-2 is far better machine for intended role of IFV just b/c it is actually armed correctly - not to mention BMP-3.
    5
  23.  Not my Burner  well, they are not holding the line anymore, are they??? Russians are breaking through. Ukraine is asking countries to provide lists of refugees that skipped military service. People over 50 are called. This only happens when you have no troops... Why would you call people over 50???
    5
  24. Yeah but they would need 100s of F-16s to get such local air superiority. Russia has dense air defenses and would quickly deploy more assets in area you are trying to breach. In addition Russia has rather lots of cruise missiles and ballistic missiles which would now have F-16s as targets on few air bases that can host them.
    4
  25. Yep like 24h ago Leopard tank was destroyed by massive fireball - probably stacked mines. Tank more or less was disintegrated. Ukraine lost 4 Leopards in just last 48h.
    4
  26. Russian thermals on their T-90M and T-14 are superior to thermals on latest M1. Not by a wide margin but better. They are 3rd gen. M1 has very good 2nd gen. On vanilla T-72BM3 you have a bit worse thermals then on M1. I would guess most Russian tanks have better thermals then Leo 1 which I feel probably has first gen.
    4
  27.  @evtinker1814  Maybe, it was not accepted for service yet & its expensive. Russia decided to upgrade 100+ T-72s per year instead and get some T-90Ms. I doubt too much things of interest are in Russian tanks. I just seen Russians paint a Z and drive Ukrainian tanks as their own. I doubt they inspect them too much. Heck, Russians already lost at least two dozen captured tanks.
    4
  28.  @hochmeisterr  T-14 was not accepted for service. T-90M is too expensive and only like 100 are in service. Besides why waste expensive T-90M when cheap T-72BM3 or even T-72B is just as good?
    4
  29. One has to remember that Leo 1 was removed from service due to existence of T-72. So yes, as tanks go Leo 1 is trash.
    4
  30. Total cope, LOL! Soon we see "Why T-34/85 is great!"
    4
  31.  @777-l3j4m  Do you know, how hard it is to hit a tank with RPG7???
    4
  32.  Not my Burner  we know Russian losses, Brits count the Graves. Also Ukraine suffers huge losses as they have huge disadvantage in artillery.
    4
  33. Not really - they have shown that in Ukraine they sure can fight and their economics of war are very, very good.
    4
  34. Kursk is a symbol of defeat. Its like a time check. As for many others there is clearly some truth in all myths, like Soviets executing so many of their own, human wave attacks did occur early in the war. Soviets did not care too much about people. Soviets were indeed preparing for an attack BUT such attack was not to come very soon. I.e. Soviets were not ready to attack in 1941. Soviets were counting on German involvement in UK and rather soft walk over. From political spectrum it was clear to Soviets that they will have to fight Germans sooner or later. General winter or more likely general autumn certainly helped defenders. Winter of 1941 was very hard. Soviet moved in extra troops from the east. These troops had winter clothing. So winter alone did not stop the Germans, Soviets did, but winter certainly helped properly dressed Soviets with properly greased guns. Note that today all Russian equipment is tested for very cold weather combat - things work quite differently in mild -15C then in a bit colder -45. Also note that through Germans did know climate of Russia they did not adequately prepare for it - they did not expect the war to last that long (common explanation). The main danger of land-lease was peace Soviets and Germans may have agreed on. Stalin did consider giving up some of the western Soviet lands.
    3
  35. LOL!
    3
  36.  @JohnBrowningsGhost  What? LOL. Leo 1 was put out to pasture b/c of T-72. More precisely Germany after unification tested L7 vs. T-72 armor on T-72M1 and found it ... lucking. And that is like very basic T-72.
    3
  37. Wait few months! It will be like 1945 in Germany!
    3
  38. Umm, no. 105mm gun is not as good as 115mm gun on T-62. Its a step up - first gun with a smooth bore! This allowed for 1) bigger projectile 2) higher muzzle speed So if you had same tech available to you, the 115mm smoothbore always wins vs. 105mm rifled gun. Physics is simply in the way.
    3
  39. ​ @Vatnik_tschistilka  From the front it is not that effective. Heck there is armor simulation of 2000m tank shot vs. BMP-1 and it barely makes it through. Front of BMP-1 has good armor as for time period - front is protected vs. machine gun fire and from 20mm auto-canon fire other than very close range. As for BMP-2 the front is 15mm at 57 degrees. Turret is 30mm at 32 degrees. " However, if the angle is steep enough, the 20 mm bullets will just bounce and won't even scratch the enemy target, such as the BMP-2's front armor." Realistically this is not why Marder sucks with its 20 mm - it sucks b/c 20 mm just has slightly more power than a HMG - it has like less than 1/2 the power of 30 mm - and even 30 mm is now seen as "low" and countries are moving towards 50 mm ++ category of auto canons.
    3
  40. Why, US sent aid to countries that was old. Why Russia cannot send its old stuff as aid? Why is it when Russia does it, its desperation, when US does it, its "good".
    3
  41. LOL, no, are you kidding me? I would say latest M-60 maybe was even with T-62. I still would think with equal crew T-62 was more lethal. It had way better gun. Way.
    3
  42.  @kpadalldotablet1009  Why b/c I can think straight and do not repeat idiot propaganda?
    3
  43.  @Vatnik_tschistilka  It was not difficult to out number Russians 8 to 1 - they needed a whole two brigades in the area they were attacking. Who had non existent mechanized force? Ukraine still has plenty of armored cars and given how common cars are every army in the world is quite mechanized. There is no need to supply units on such dash - its not like they run out of fuel or ammo. I know Russia had two brigades in the area - so I assume Ukraine had more than six in the area, with two attacking around two battalions. I.e. two brigades for the whole Kharkiv front - east to west. One was national guard the other was DPR militia. Each battalion had a cover of around 20km. Its not like most of this stuff is not well known. Each brigade, with trucks has around 500 vehicles at full strength - this is also known. I do not understand what is so strange or mysterious here. Russian command had less than 200k troops for well over 1000km front line - they could not man such huge front with so few troops. Hence the mobilization.
    3
  44. But its not happening at all like you say.
    3
  45. Germany paused on western front and still could not defeat the Soviets - by the time allies got involved Germany clearly lost the war - i.e. by 1943 Soviet had turned the tide decisively. Main problem for Germany was that Soviet industry was huge - it could out produce Germany & Soviet man power was also huge. Allied non intervention would have weakened Soviet Union but Germany would still loose.
    3
  46. Most sane pp like me already concluded the same. Nothing special or new. The T-62M can be used as part of new Kherson People Republic BTGs. Russia has tendency to give old junk to its allies. Similar to US.
    3
  47. Yes, Ukraine also understands strength - Putin is talking their language. They are having impolite conversation.
    3
  48. Nah, maybe if it was 1000 tanks but we are talking about what, 100? maybe 150? At the current rate tiny Russian force is kicking Ukrainians in the rear end I doubt anything less then 1000 would make a difference. Heck, even 1000 would be temporary only.
    3
  49. Another 4 guns. Great. I am sure it will make huge difference. Note that Ukraine had more towed and self propelled guns at the beginning of war then all of EU NATO combined. Russia has more artillery systems then not just all of NATO + Ukraine but almost as much as rest of the planet combined.
    3
  50. Usually NATO tanks do not get ERA upgrades, at least not on the front. Adding ERA to Leo 2 A4 would upgrade it to roughly T-72 B mod 1989 - i.e. still quite inferior to T-72BM3.
    2