Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "The Wall Street Journal" channel.

  1. But that made sense, this does not. This gap is a swamp land with forests. Its like warmer version of Finland.
    1
  2. Russian tanks are quite resistant to HEAT and M1 will not survive front hit from Russian APFSDS round so you are better off firing your own APFSDS or you end up scrapped.
    1
  3.  @steeltalon2317  M1 armor is about 100mm RHA inferior to T-72A on the front turret cheeks. M1A1 armor is superior to T-72A (or else why would they bother) - and lets say its similar to T-72B without ERA. I assure you T-72B was penetrated by inferior rounds in this war already - so clearly with better rounds it will not be a big deal to deal with M1A1 especially with much better round. Sure, we could do a test - as it is not simple to translate armor to RHA that is made of composites - i.e. rounds has to be designed to defeat certain composite or its penetration will be weaker. However, here we are dealing with a wide margin of error - thus it is quite safe to say that vacuum 2 will have no issues with M1A1. We are talking here about direct hit, not a glancing hit - by same account you could do a glancing hit on T-55 and also just damage it - direct hit, onto turret cheek where there is a warm human behind it - not more armor. Russian tanks do not have main gun ammunition surrounding the crew in most instances - the ammo is in the carousel in the floor of the tank. Some extra ammo can be stored in blow out panel compartment - this is for T-90 / Leopard 2 style tanks. For many T-72s - as in the case of M1, some extra ammo is usually not carried. Thus in the case of penetration it is very rare to have any major explosion right away - if crew survives the initial penetration it leaves to fight another day. Tank is on fire and eventually ammo cooks of in the turret and makes it go boom. Sure it is better to have blow out panels vs. not, but their importance is way over rated. Also depleted uranium armor in M1 - same as with its main gun using depleted uranium is not some kind of super technology - its mostly a crouch used by the US. The main gun is obsolete - it cannot produce maximum penetration at high speeds required of tungsten - so it uses uranium - b/c uranium does not need such high speeds. The uranium turret plates were added when it was found out that M1 armor plainly sucked - I mean brand new tank and it was already inferior to your enemy's tank somewhat dated armor. So US again had to "fix" the issue and did so with some uranium plates. If both these uranium solutions were do great everyone would be using them - Russia does have DU rounds for their T-72s - they could be used when needed for older tanks.
    1
  4.  @steeltalon2317  Be patient. Russia is winning the war, it will be settled as you say on the battlefield. Ukrainian infantry will start pouring for sure - lots of new body bags will need to be imported by Russia to remove them. Like the training US given to the Iraqis I hope - you know - where US trained Iraqi army was totally overrun during battle of Mosul - that training? Or do you mean how well US trained Afghan army over the 20 years US was there - that training? Or maybe the Georgian army? Do let me know when was last time US trained army actually did well. Vietnam, nope - oh and US provided air-force to South Vietnam. US lost so much equipment in Vietnam their police and special forces still use M-16 and even make parts for them - 113, upgraded, is their main battlefield taxi. They just recently retired last US tanks captured from that war. Maybe you should not throw stones in glass house.
    1
  5.  @steeltalon2317  Which army is loosing massive amounts of troops and which army has problems with number of troops as everyone run away? Well? Yes, I want to go that road - as I can clearly see that the training for the Saudi did not go well. Also US did not train neither Canadian or Polish army. Certainly not German - maybe the other way around.
    1
  6.  @steeltalon2317  I do not see any indications there are any "failures". Where do you see failures? I have seen this video months ago and I do not see any failures. Maybe you want to see his video of "what is wrong with M1" to see that he talks about all tanks in a fair manner. I been to the military - I am not sure about you - maybe a very junior role.
    1
  7.  @steeltalon2317  I make it even simpler for you, if US army is so good, why they lost in Afghanistan and why did the loose in Vietnam - these were two clear cases of loosing, so why? Why they have not made it to Kiev? Maybe they do not feel the current need to get there - or maybe they will get there next month. They are winning the war and pushing the enemy back. That is all they need right now. Sure they could mobilize 1 million men and overrun Ukraine - but why - there is no need for such major escalation yet. We see what Chinese say in the coming weeks.
    1
  8. US wants war NOW! China is not stupid. They do everything they can to push the war into the future. They know time is on their side. In 10 years they have large advantage. In 20 crushing one.
    1
  9. On video they were shown to work against tanks very well, they roll over if you hit them.
    1
  10.  @freedomordeath89  Ah, so you need a special tank, with a plow in front, that is going to make a single way through the field while enemy's troops take positions around this "alley of death" and kill a lot of stupid Ukies. Got it.
    1
  11. LOL, and China can out produce Taiwan here like what, 20:1 or is it 30:1? Not to mention China has like what, 10x as many targets? LOL.
    1
  12. Spot on.
    1
  13. Most western tanks do not have blow out panels - only latest tanks (both sides) have these panles.
    1
  14.  @blackdification  Negative. Leopard 2 does not have them for all ammo. T-90 does not have it for all ammo as well. Only designs after about 1980 start to have it - such as M1, Leclerc, K2 and T-14.
    1
  15.  @blackdification  M1 has blowout panels in the floor for the ammo stored there - usually no ammo is there - but panels are still provided. T-14 has unmanned turret so there are no issues there - crew is totally protected & has no interactions with any ammo.
    1
  16. Immobile fortifications win. See how Ukraine used them? Why would they not work for the other side?
    1
  17. Come on pure propaganda. Watch some videos making fun out of this.
    1
  18. Wow, they still have an artillery unit? I wonder whatever it is true a week later.
    1
  19.  @huzcer  Well it is rare to get stacked sentences unless crime is grave - Bernie Madoff got concurrent sentences for his fraud as crime was "grave" - similar should apply here - its not like she defrauded for few million $$$ she is a symbol of fraud, same as Bernie is. Even more, fraud runs in her family - clearly they do not understand its "bad".
    1
  20.  @CedarHunt  I would wait around 5 to 10 years. Sink US fleet - and then totally humiliate US by crushing it if it goes to war against China. Once US is defeated in defensive war, slowly grind Taiwan into compliance. I.e. it is doubtful today US would have much of a chance to even tie China in a war one on one - under even terms.
    1
  21. M1 armor was so weak that it was inferior (by a wide margin) to T-72A. So US quickly added the uranium plates to make it a better protected tank.
    1
  22.  @jacobbaumgardner3406  The main reason US was leading is b/c at that time Soviet Union collapsed and nothing was made for at least a decade. T-90 fixed many issues but could not fix the underlying old design & is a stop gap measure. Sure it now has welded turret & quite decent armor BUT its main draw back is that even after modifications it cannot use super long rod ammo (among other issues). This is why Russians around year 2000 started experimenting with a new tank. At first it was a tank similar to T series of old but simply larger - than in 2010 they decided on a far more ambitious project with T-14. After a decade of work first T-14s started to roll out & are still having issues ironed out. They probably would have been adopted into service right now if not for the war. The main problem with T-14 (as is for Su-57) is their high price point. They cost 2x as much as T-90M. T-90M does the job well for current war. I guess Russians should invest more in active protection - but than again most kills are by artillery - so maybe its not such a huge priority. Incidentally you would think Russians would have a decent active protection system by now since they were the ones whom invented the dam thing like many decades ago - first systems were added to T-55 (!)
    1
  23. And then BOOM as tank is now immobilized by a mine.
    1
  24. LOL - Philippines do not have any meaningful navy. Taiwan can defend for a while but eventually it would be defeated.
    1
  25. Average survival rate is around a week. He does not care.
    1
  26. Iran storing their jets under a mountain --- idiotic. Taiwan doing the same --- smart idea. Also US admits Taiwan is part of China - yet it sends arms there and says it will defend the rebels --- while at the same time, Russian arming of people of Donbass and assisting them against Ukraine is seen as bad.
    1
  27. As Ukraine war shows - where Russia is clearly winning, do not under estimate Chinese will power. Also it may prove to be difficult to supply Taiwan - Ukraine has gotten biggest military aid ... ever.
    1
  28. I bet a lot of average folks lost $$$ too - would not shock me if this was part of mutual fund someone had in their retirement. Would not shock me if some average people had this stock as part of portfolio.
    1
  29. Exactly - just play both China and US and live in peace. China cannot reunify by force if Taiwan is their friend.
    1
  30.  @TPM188  Yes of course. Each Chinese leader is elected for a term. Xi made waves when he was elected for extra term. Election process is very similar to US - where small electorate elects a president. In case you wonder whom elects these - its a pyramid - guy at the top is elected by lower level. China actually has very democratic (by western standard) election process at the very bottom - with no more than few 1000s of votes at village level.
    1
  31. No, once you hit them, they turn and roll
    1
  32. Interesting point is that Russia also has depleted uranium rounds to be used in case of war. Not sure they deploy these. They would be used on older tanks.
    1
  33. Yet, its winning... How?
    1
  34. LOL - nope. Ukraine had storm shadow missiles - and now Russia has them as well :) Few F-16s would not make any difference.
    1
  35. Actually Mongols were defeated... by castles. I.e. it was the invention of a castle that caused invasion of Europe to fail when they come for 2nds. Castles build from stone and bricks slowed Mongols down & Mongols had no time to build siege engines - nor having them was a good idea for army build on speed.
    1
  36.  @rangb126  i did not say collapse, i replied to your thesis that the castles Europeans build did not matter. They did. A lot. They were one of the main causes why invading Europe failed, not the only one, but one of main ones.
    1
  37. No - these guys are PAID to say BS for propaganda. If it was their command they would not say anything even remotely close ;)
    1
  38. T-72 also uses composite armor ;) Who created this BS? Most tanks are wasted by artillery - here its thin metal plate vs. artillery rounds - it does not matter you are in M1 or T-72 or Leopard 2 or T-90 or pretty much anything else. Also notice the supposed tank numbers for both sides --- they are in 1000s. What sending 100 more tanks will do? Nothing.
    1
  39. @Test test Yeah, sure, and who is going to protect these SAMs? What SAMs anyway - I was under impression most are destroyed. Russia has advantage in numbers, ammo available, recon ability and range. Same precision. Also has heavy drone advantage and heavy glide bomb advantage. Russia also has heavy advantage in armor. Only thing Ukraine can hope for is numbers - lots of troops and simply taking heavy losses. This is what Russia hopes for - trading super heavy losses for some land. Once offensive is over, Russia can counter. Essentially the sooner Ukraine goes on full offensive the sooner we see how badly they are loosing the war.
    1
  40. Nah Kalingrad would be defended with tactical nukes. Taking it is out of question.
    1
  41. LOL!
    1
  42. 100s have been destroyed. I.e. not economical to recover. 100s. Iraq lost 60 of them in the battle of Mosul to ISIS.
    1
  43. In few years yes, over 200. In few years.
    1
  44. Overall 100s were lost. Maybe up to a 1000.
    1
  45. Yes it did!
    1
  46. Ukraine is certainly not limiting casualties - they are maximizing them on their side - they switched to using light infantry in assault role....
    1
  47. 40!
    1
  48. Yeah and in far greater numbers with unified design.
    1
  49. Smart man. Probably the best politician in all of EU!
    1
  50. Nah, time is on Russian side - they can wait. Pressure is on Ukraine. Problem is they lost the war - the do an offensive, Russia counters and boom. They do nothing and eventually they will be beaten into the ground. Waiting buys them time - prolongs the war and hope.
    1