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

  1.  @Rabarbarzynca  Russians in Kiev region were a total mystery. The whole force was maybe 30k, plus maybe 5k for Chechens. Tiny. And they taken area the size of half of Poland. I personally believe either it was an attempt to encircle and scare Ukrainians or as claimed a fixing operation. The force employed was so tiny it is hard to say they wanted to take Kiev. Note that through Russians are very low on using actual numbers they still employed at least 12k plus plus for Mariupol - city that is at least 6 times smaller then Kiev. Yet for Kiev they had - and Sumy and Chernihow such tiny numbers? Putin stated goals for Ukraine, as per Putin are: - demilitarization - de Nazification - no to NATO - neutral status. All other things such as "he wants to take all of Ukraine" etc. Were made up by the west. Its a sport of "what Putin really wants". Personally I think Putin will at least take whole right hand side of Dniepr river. Maybe if Ukraine surprises him and surrenders he will be angry and take only Donbass. But Ukraine is unlikely to surrender so Russians will take much more. I am unsure about Odessa, maybe, but I think not - the river makes for a nice border.
    1
  2. I wonder if there are still any T-55s in storage. They have plenty of T-72s still and losses are now very low. So no issues for Russia.
    1
  3. A lot of this is propaganda and a lot of this is true. Same as from the other side - pro Ukraine, a lot is true but a lot is pure propaganda. Just to give the help (weapons only) to Ukraine - currently at over 60B -- this is about half of Lend - lease help during WWII that Soviets got adjusted to today's $$$. I.e. Ukraine is getting about 2x+ the aid Soviets got against Germany. Combined with other aid it is more like 4x.
    1
  4. I would say neither - it is totally different war. It is not winter or Russo - Japanese war nor patriotic war as Russians are allergic to taking any losses - for the first time in history Russian commanders are fired if they take losses. Also Russians are now clearly winning the war so we cannot use examples where they lost - maybe the continuation war is a good example, when Soviets easily started to roll over the Fins and give such epic losses to Finland that Finland had to surrender or loose entire nation.
    1
  5.  @External2737  Spent? Russia is crushing Ukraine all along the front line and giving them massive casualties. Ukraine lost the war at the very beginning when they refused to negotiate. How can any logical person not see that Russia only deployed 300k reservists - they can deploy as needed another 300k and another 300k etc. Ukraine deployed 100% and their army is now shrinking. Lets all hope for Ukrainian counter offensive - the war will end soon after unless idiots want to fight to the last Ukrainian - in that case, few more years and no more western ruled Ukraine.
    1
  6.  @demonprinces17  Not really. Tanks are expandable piece of hardware to do certain job. Efficiently and cheaply. T-72BM3 is ideal for these operations. It is cheap, packs a punch and easily deals with all threats in Ukraine. After all guys, you do know Russians are pushing Ukrainians back - i.e. attacking with like what, 1:3 disadvantage? Heck when things are 1:1 Ukrainians are toast.
    1
  7.  @V14-x6n  Depending on version T-90A optics could be the same or inferior to T-72BM3. Best thermals these have are "not the best" 2nd gen. The T-90M and T-14 have "not the best" 3rd gen. As far optics goes latest Abrams is superior to all T-72s and T-90A but inferior to both T-90M and T-14. Russia produces T-90M but at a low rate. Reason is, T-72BM3 can do almost everything T-90M can but at half the cost. Cost wise T-72BM3 is about 1/2 of new T-90M and this is at least half of new T-14. Russians being practical picked T-72BM3s as their main route till they run out of these. As far as losses go, they are so high in Ukraine that US, no longer sends just tanks, artillery, anti air, but also aircraft! I.e. their "client" state is getting hammered. I expect at least 1000 Ukrainian tanks have been taken out, 750 permanently, 250 need fixing. Which is almost entire front stock! Ukraine can recondition maybe 800-1000 tanks max - but these will be old. Poland delivered 100 old tanks. Slovakia 5. Less the 100 APCS afaik plus US sent some super old M113 - 200 of them (which are similar to MT-LB which both Ukraine and Russia have 1000s). This is why US is sending 800m of aid every week (!).
    1
  8.  @nvelsen1975  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_armoured_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II "The United Kingdom produced 27,528 tanks and self-propelled guns from July 1939 to May 1945," --- this is dwarfed by Soviet production.
    1
  9.  @abcdedfg8340  Imagine that Ukraine now got more stuff from the west than Soviets got throughout entire WWII. Yes, help was nice and noticeable - it may have prevented Stalin from caving in - or at least from Soviets becoming very weak & prolonging the war till 1946 or 1947. Germany may have realized they need nukes after all and developed them together with US. Japan would not be attacked by Soviets. Etc. etc.
    1
  10. Why maintain - by the time they are about to break down they will be scrap metal. Simple solution to complex problem. Use them same way Russians used German Panther's and Tigers during WWII - ride them till they break down.
    1
  11.  @rogerpennel1798  Yep, as soon as they figured out during early 90s that it is trash vs. tests vs. East German T-72s it was removed form front line service.
    1
  12.  @rogerpennel1798  Of course they would not have kept T-72s even if they were very best - they had 1000s of tanks, tanks that had little use they needed to recycle. Germany army shrink by about 3x. So 1000s of west Germany made, perfectly fine tanks and IFVs were sold off. There was nothing wrong with T-72s - there were simply surplus like 1000s of west German tanks and IFVs that also were perfectly fine vehicles.
    1
  13. Mostly b/c greens are about ideas - this is an idea. They also are easily manipulated by propaganda. But come push to shove I doubt greens would be all over the army to come and fight. It would be AFD that would fight.
    1
  14. You do not understand geo politics. Germany should do everything it can not to send any weapons. US is doing all it can to send all weapons. The war is between Russia and US and Ukraine is a proxy. Germany is not trying to help too much US proxy as it wants to keep US out of Europe. It is also in Germany's best interest to keep Russia in Europe and not go to Asia. US does not care - weak Europe under its boot is a good thing. US does not care for UA losses - as long as 1 Russian dies for 100 UA its ok. For Germany its best if war ends now. Like now. Sending weapons === war will end in the future. Weak Russia is not in German interest. Its in US. Notice how evil Russian oil and gas is being replaced by good US gas that is 50% or 100% more $$$. This weakens EU == Germany. Notice how Russia does not care - why? B/c they sell their gas to China. Why? B/c China will pay more then Germany. Why? B/c alternative is US which is lots of $$$. Winners: US (sold for lots of $$$), Russia (sold for more $$$), China (got for less $$$) Losers: EU (Germany - has to pay like double for gas and other stuff). Big losers: EU (Poland - has to spend 20 Billion USD this year for Ukrainians and no money from EU aka Germany). As you see Germany is in tough spot & war is very, very bad for it.
    1
  15. In short fire bombs are more effective at getting users of such idiotic instruments killed then the indented victim. If you need to use fire bombs, pick easier targets, like trucks.
    1
  16.  @JohnBrowningsGhost  Leopard 1 is from 1956 design. T-72 is from 1971/72 design. See the difference? Guess from when are T-54/55 series and T-62.
    1
  17. Russian support is sky high. Putin has over 80% support now. I doubt you can break Russian morale. Especially after atrocities in Mariupol.
    1
  18. No they do not need to. All tanks fire better when stopped. Stabilization on old T-72s was indeed poor. But Russians do not use these.
    1
  19.  @kerchtrucking  Yes, for new battalions forming there.
    1
  20. It is a bit surprising that such old design as panzer IV did so well against new Sherman.
    1
  21. Depends which versions of M60. Last version I would call them even. (T-62M).
    1
  22. Not really - there are no plans to invest in the army and production - other than say Poland. You do not see for example neither US nor Germany planning to increase tank production.
    1
  23.  @recoil53  Not really - there are no huge orders or huge expansion in the plans. Sure maybe Nordic countries are standardizing rifles but US just changed the caliber from 5.56 to 6.8. Also it will take years before US artillery production has any meaningful increase. Germany can order 10x more - but does not change the fact that production numbers per month are not increasing by much. You cannot increase production without major investment. US did not open old tank factory. I.e. there is nothing indicating major artillery production is coming to the west. Even if by some magic west doubled artillery production in a year - the war is going so bad for Ukraine that in a year - even this year they need to capitulate or the fight will be to the last Ukrainian. Lets say UA wants to implode and will fight to the last one and west doubles production in a year (this doubling is a dream - nothing indicates this - but lets take best case UA scenario) so what? Russia will still have 3 : 1 advantage and Ukraine will be running out of people. Even if the west doubles production again (magic) in a year and matches Russian artillery - who will operate it after 4 years of war on UA side? The only solution for Ukrainian victory is for NATO to join the war & convince Russia it cannot go for the tie (i.e. defend with nukes). This seems less likely than magical artillery production numbers. I fail to see the dream unrealistic world where Ukraine has a chance of defeating Russia - nothing at all indicates such scenario. No sane person looking and hard core data sees this. Especially with idiots in Ukraine defining victory as total defeat of Russia. I think Russia should continue in their current strategy and if Ukraine wants to fight to the last man and woman, sadly, let the idiots do it. If they are so stupid as to throw their nation away, maybe they do not deserve it in the first place.
    1
  24.  @recoil53  Dude, do you know how long it takes to build a factory to make ammo for 155mm guns and how long it takes to expand? Official numbers for Russian production show steady gains from 2014 - these gains per year are less than 100k rounds. Officially in 2022 Russia made over 700k rounds per year. If anyone was serious they would have signed papers yesterday. Look at Russian production increase - this is a multi year process, needs investments etc. There clearly is no will to increase production as no one sane thinks they will need to do so. "In the US, BAE & the Pentagon are figuring out what needs to be done to ramp up production too. " - no they are NOT. They know exactly what to do but it costs $$$ that no one is exactly wanting to spend. So they did nothing. After more than a year of a war they signed no contracts. Why? They know that war will almost certainly be over by the time these things would be online & wasted $$$. Even if Ukraine was still in the fight they will be out of people. So there is no push to ramp up production in few years. If there was, we would see orders. Same with tanks, US has factories already build, need to refurbish and off they go. But no ORDERS were placed. None. "Factories for the anti-tank missiles are also adding new lines." they are adding a little bit more capacity, but nothing drastic. No new factories are build AFAIK.
    1
  25.  @oohhboy-funhouse  Well, up to a point. There a limits to the hitch.
    1
  26. I only have seen DPR forces with these - so its Ukrainians robbing other Ukrainians.
    1
  27. By summer war will be over. Offensive to take out Ukraine main force is starting now / started. By May 9th I expect Ukraine Donbass forces to be surrounded or Putin will call full mobilization. Lend / Lease is a terrible idea and I hope it does not saddle Ukraine for next few hundred years with debt - whatever is left of it.
    1
  28. Well, after Poland sent all of its T-72 tanks it has only Leopards left - so its sending first batch of 10.
    1
  29.  @AlexanderTch  Yes, they will get it all clear from Germany - i.e. there is no way Germany can say no - politically speaking.
    1
  30.  @juslitor  Not really - we actually saw this in action on video. Most tanks actually survive multiple near misses - on video. Not Leo 1 - its weaker then many IFV.
    1
  31. It was an excellent gun, but also had its issues and was not perfect. Also "excellent" does not mean it was worth 10x allied guns in similar category.
    1
  32.  @greg.kasarik  You forgot to include luck of any armor on Leo 1 ;) Panther believe it or not also had night vision! It was called Vampire system. Panther would not be that hard to upgrade to be a better tank for modern times as Leo 1 was a very specific tank. To upgrade a panther all you would need is to install L7 main gun which for the time was not big BTW, add modern ballistic computer all other trimmings (not hard) and say add K-5 reactive armor - now your upgraded tank, if we shall say that the armor is not some 1945 crumbly stuff, and power pack is not of similar 1945 quality is much better then Leo 1. Leo 1 was build when AT weapons ruled. A BMP-1 with its low velocity gun was able to take out any tank. Infantry had tons of weapons to deal with tank. In this scenario few "glass cannon" tanks were created. These tanks had armor package of IFV. Their main defense was speed. This was so bad they had to be up armored as even distant shots from 20mm auto cannons were a threat (!). This tank thus is more like an IFV without infantry today - it has fire power but none of the defenses of a modern tank. Now upgraded as above panther, is now similar to T-62M. It may not be fast tank but it has plenty of armor compared to IFV. One has to point out that if IFV were sufficient more of these would be sent not T-62M. So IFVs were insufficient and tanks were sent. This points out why upgraded panther has roles on modern battlefield that Leo 1 simply cannot fill in.
    1
  33.  @victorzvyagintsev1325  Leo 1 in modern conflict has no crew survivability ;) Anything will penetrate it, even auto cannon fire from 30mm (some armor was upgraded but I doubt enough to stop 30mm, 20mm and 25mm maybe but not modern 30mm).
    1
  34. For years Canada tried to sell them for next to nothing and no one wanted to buy them.
    1
  35. Yeah, Oryx numbers can only be used for stats - they show 22% - decent. About a month ago a guy that counts tanks in storage called less than 500 have been taken out. So either Russia is slow to replace or their losses are far lower.
    1
  36.  @thunderbug8640  Umm, less than 500 tanks of all types, not just T-80s. Plus around 100 - 150 new tanks made. So if we use 22% than Russia has taken out of storage around 100 T-80 tanks.
    1
  37. Maybe few. Russia pulled around 500 tanks out of storage a month ago, so it does not seem like losses are that huge.
    1
  38.  @leehoughton9068  500 seems like a huge number - Russia did open two new repair depots but I doubt restore her means more than "basic maintenance" i.e. not restore as in take whole tank apart, inspect, paint, grease and re-assemble. That takes lots of time. Russia did no more than 200 tanks like this per year.
    1
  39. Odessa will probably see Russians from Mikolayev - i.e. ground forces.
    1
  40. Maybe if they can be fixed - more junk for Soviet armor to remove.
    1
  41. Poland is stupid but not that stupid. PT-91 is vastly superior to the junk Spain has. For starters it works. Poland could receive all 40 for the 200+ tanks it already sent. These 40 could be stripped for parts.
    1
  42. T-62M does not have advanced sensors - like thermals. It does not have laser warning receiver or simialr tech AFAIK.
    1
  43.  @EpicThe112  HESH is ineffective against modern armor or even T-62M brow armor. Syrians had original T-62s which were more or less T-55s with a bit more armor. Hesh also needs energy to inflict damage - so no, at 5km, if they manage to hit anything, a HESH round in 105mm will not have a lot of energy left. HESH is obsolete type against T-72s or T-80s or T-90s as they have modular armor that have zero chance of hurting anyone inside more then high explosive shells does. This is main reason British tanks were obsolete for modern war.
    1
  44. They loose stuff so fast I would not worry about any maintenance. They lost 100s of tanks. Give them a week and all Leo 1s would be scrap.
    1
  45.  @hochmeisterr  I doubt it. Say a month to surround Donbass pocket. Another month, 6 weeks to clear it. Month to move towards Dnipro. 2 months to take it, at the same time 3 months for Kharkiv. So we are under 7 months. I guess to get to a year Putin would need to go for more - like say Odessa. I think if there will not be any concrete results by May 9th parade they are going to mobilize and finish it off quicker that way. All depends on how far Putin wants to go.
    1
  46. Mostly correct, except the D-day comparison. After fall of France UK had almost no defenses of any kind. Like .... none. This cannot be compared to D-day as Germans did have some defenses - it was not few guys with rifles on the beach. Granted path to success would be blocked by simple logistics (how do you supply even little troops over the channel) but still it is worth pointing out that even a single German paratrooper division in 1940 would be a major issue for the British. BUT as charts show Germany would need roughly 10 divisions to take out UK in the most optimistic scenario - rather tiny force BUT supporting around quarter of a million of troops with royal navy and some royal airforce was a NO GO. Even if no one escaped Dunkirk you simply could not take UK with say 5 divisions. Also note this is all very optimistic, it assumes Germany could control UK / take over with far less troops then they needed to occupy General Government - i.e. non-annexed part of Poland.
    1
  47.  @harveyknguyen  Maybe some. But Luftwaffe would have no issues gaining air superiority over a certain area for some time - say a day. Problem is with what happens next.
    1
  48.  @christopherg2347  Western systems are only out ranged by few km, not 5-15km - unless the send old junk.
    1
  49.  @christopherg2347  Yes, Russians systems are outranging western artillery systems. This is easily verifiable on the net.
    1
  50. Russia does not use T-72M and T-72M1 - Poland uses T-72M and T-72M1. Russia may have limited, very limited stock of T-72As employed - mostly with Donbass forces. Russia also has at least 100 ex Ukrainian tanks T-64BVs. Majority of tanks are T-72B / BM /BM3 style tanks which are all vastly superior to Leo 1 under any condition.
    1