Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Well, Chinese did show they can quickly amass large aircraft formations and send them to Taiwan AIZ. That shows they do know how to do a thing or two. Neither US nor China have anything close to at peer experience in air war. Certainly US has advantage if they met in the middle of nowhere but China is on home front defending meaning its logistics is easier not to mention extra systems that can be used.
    23
  2. One has to remember that it was Cuba with help from Soviets that brought freedom to large parts of Africa. Imperialists were defeated & slavery ended. Hats off to Cuba - for no gain of their own, just to bring freedom to the people. Sometimes communists do stick to their principles.
    20
  3. So far Binkov, same as with Armenia, over estimated defensive potential. After day 1 Ukraine does not look too good, Russians moved in at least 25km deep and easily won border conflict. They have also taken both port cities and control airport next o Kiev. Losses of life so far have been light.
    18
  4. Why Germany cannot do the same for Poland??? Why? I mean it is clear to anyone in Poland that Polish naval yards are unable or unwilling to build anything.
    14
  5. Russia has won the war. We are now in the phase where we are establishing what exactly the winner will get. As for casulties, in static scenario or with Ukriane failed counter offensive, we look at artillery advantage. Ukraine is fighting regular war, so artillery advantage of Russia directly translated into heavy UA losses. Thus I just multiply Russian losses by 3x to get conservative estimate of UA losses. During counter offensive UA suffered sometimes even 5x 6x or higher losses per day.
    13
  6. Without hot war China will surpass US in real dollars in the next decade or so. Its not too hard - Chinese need to make less per capita then in Poland in order to swim by US. Its not a "Very High Mark" they need to achieve.
    11
  7. Both 1967 and 2020 were just clashes - 1962 was a mini war.
    11
  8. So this was three weeks ago. Today Russian drones of various types account for up to a dozen destroyed high value targets per day. They are alone accounting for far more equipment trashed than is replaced by the west. Drones alone.
    10
  9. It is fairly easy to say that any invasion of Venezuela would solidify the government against common enemy - US. So I doubt that US style Bay of Pigs would work. They would be crushed. It would quickly turn into another Vietnam. Obviously if US casualties do not matter its a victory - but for what? US would be saddled with another forever war.
    9
  10. Main problem for US is Chinese industrial total dominance. Once US lost tech edge at the beginning of the war, a year in both sides tech would be similar except China could out produce US by at least 5 to 1 if not more. Thus the question is not so much of reaching Bejing but more of can US hold even a sliver of Chinese land. US could have some support from allies but do not count on that without more or less twisting such allies hand and forcing them - which would not really create any "reliable" allies. Also amphibious landings need total dominance. Here it would not even be close. Remember D day - small channel and supremacy of epic proportions. Also look at how difficult invading Taiwan for China is - imagine how hard it would be to invade China from Taiwan ;) On the plus side I doubt China will reach Washington so all is good.
    8
  11. No one can invade Canada from the north as ... welll ... how would they get south? Russian invasion would take years just to walk over ;) Two young fugitives run into Canadian north in summer. Experts gave them 1 week. They committed suicide after 48h. Use air borne troops to take over Yukon - and do amphibious landings + take over port of Vancouver and/ or other facilities on the coast. This should not be too hard with say 4000 air borne troops and 6000 marines + most of Russian navy and airforce. Once foothold is taken there one could move in a lot of airforce to local airfields and wait for troops / supplies with regular ships. Canada would be forced to defend along Rocky Mountains - the most patriotic (mostly to defend itself) province is AB and its right there. On the other hand promising AB few pipelines will weaken their resolve. The other side has far more troops as it is home to the "traitors" aka Quebec. Yes, more troops but population far less willing to resist & maybe even there is a hint of convincing them to defect. As a Canadian I fail to see how we could defend as well as Russians think. After 1 year I am sure to re-learn my Russian.
    8
  12. Even with Soviet Union war scenario it was seen as impossible to take Spain. I fail to see how it is minor victory for France? B/c they taken some islands but not even an inch of Spain proper? Through France has bigger population and thus bigger economy it is not enough to overcome the mountains.
    7
  13. I totally disagree. I think it would be major Spanish victory especially in long term. They have far bigger economy and far bigger manufacturing sector and would easily arm themselves far more. As for attack on small peninsulas - one has to remember Poland, Hel 1939. Also a brigade size unit. Germany could not do anything and contemplated very costly marine assault. I.e. brigade size unit was able to hold off Germans with ease. There will be no way for Morocco to take Ceuta - geography is simply not on their side. As for Melilla maybe they could take it but Spain could simply invade Morocco - especially if war dragged on for months - much bigger Spanish economy in real $$$ and much bigger manufacturing sector would mean more arms. Not to mention bigger population. I.e. if you cannot defend - attack. Finally I doubt Moroccan soldiers are trained even near to NATO level.
    7
  14. Nah, too much time difference - they would know its a jet engine but would not have the tech to replicate the engine due to luck of alloy tech. First British jet entered combat duty in 1945 - expect more of the same.
    7
  15. I disagree - invading Malaysia would be suicide. Even through creating a buffer zone is a great idea it would expose friendly troops to attack on open ground by a significantly superior enemy. Also it would galvanize Malaysia as a country and turn offensive war into defensive war. Doing raids into Malaysia could be an option but holding territory would not be so great.
    7
  16. Essentially equipment and people losses for Ukraine are double Russian losses. There is no other way logically to keep balance. Thus Ukraine has lost now about 900 tanks permanently and few hundred in repair. Russia half that. I do not give Oryx website much trust, they purposely don't report known Ukrainian losses. Also many losses are mis represented.
    7
  17. A lot of fake info here. Donbass troops are very experienced. There numbers are 35+40k conscripts and growing. There are also at least 10k, more likely 20k Chechens. And few 1000s others - wagner, Ossetins etc. Actual Russian army is around 100,000. So Russian currently deployed (no support) troops are at most 200k. Russia can increase these numbers by max 50k. Maybe from other sources another 10k or 20k. But this is it. Russian forces were outnumbered in Kiev region by 4 to 5 to 1. This is why they could not advance and were pulled back. I think Ukrainian losses are at least 50% higher then Russian losses (Russian proper) - going on the attack does not mean higher losses - see Armenia war from 2020. AM in the mountains lost 1/3 more (!!!!) and this was Donbass style forts in the mountains.
    6
  18. This nicely underlines stupidity of Poland buying 250 Abrams tanks. Current Polish army does not have enough personnel to operate its current tanks by a wide margin. Current Polish stocks are around 250 Leopard tanks and few hundred T-72s. Most of these tanks are not in combat units. By comparison Germany has around 300 tanks (!). With these 250 Abrams tanks Poland will have biggest EU panzer army. Even if they get rid of most T-72s they will have the largest one. Number of attack helicopters that are modern (upgraded less then 30 years ago)? Zero.
    6
  19. @Ecard Ecardian They do have a navy - but "expansion" is not on their agenda - i.e. they are not as "militaristic" and not as "intrusive" as US is. When you look at US military its like 100% aggressive / invasion focused force. China as per video is mostly defensive force.
    6
  20. Well, he is just using logic. Deal with it. I even think Oryx numbers of Russian stuff are inflated. Just use what UA staff posts about Russian losses and assume they are talking about themselves then add a bit more.
    5
  21.  @Nothing_._Here  WTF are you talking about? what illegal bases - Russia has handful of bases overseas - US has almost 200. Again what bases? Where? What invasion of Latvia or Estonia? What for? When? If they wanted to invade they can just walk over. Why would they smuggle arms into the Baltic states and for whom? Only smuggling I see is standard criminal activity. There are tens of 1000s of arms smuggled form US into Canada every year. In 1991 Soviets were more or less disintegrated - you may read on history. This was at their weakest since 1920. There is large population of ethnic Russians in both Latvia and Estonia which both heavily discriminate against these populations. EU sometimes acknowledges that but usually pretends not to see. As long as both do not over do their blatant racism these Russians will not want to rejoin motherland. This is not just Russians - Lithuanians are racist against Poles as well - even through these Poles lived on that land longer then Lithuanians themselves. Problem with the Baltics is not Russians - it is rampant nationalism based on ethnicity.
    5
  22. No Soviets would certainly not attack earlier as on 16th they signed a document with Polish allay Japan. As far as Polish navy, author forgot the naval port at Hel - which held out to October - i.e. Polish navy in this scenario would resupply there.
    5
  23. Well if Turks press harder there could be more problems with ships colliding etc. Eventually this will force EU overlord to do something and sanctions against Turkey would send it quickly to the stone age. In fact sanctions against Turkey by EU are long overdue and should be implemented already with threat of heavy consequences. Turkey is too weak to be a big power - it is far weaker then Russia or Germany which are in their immediate area. Turkey is a regional power similar to say France or UK.
    5
  24. With Erdogan at the helm never say never.
    5
  25.  @greenling.  Simple, Russia is clearly achieving its main goals. Ukraine will never enter NATO. Ukraine will loose Russian speaking territory. Ukraine army is on the ropes. Ukraine has no economy. Ukraine army is smashed, with no prospects of replenishment. Meanwhile Russia is total opposite. IMF points to best economy in Europe. Russia surpassed Germany some time ago!
    5
  26. Polish idiotic current leadership thinks Poland will fight next war identical to WWII so they are preparing very, very well for a WWII, one more time. Current Polish #s are a bit higher, total around 144k. Poland has a lot of legacy Soviet stuff - and modern APCS - we are talking 2k. With German defeat Poland would not be invaded by the Soviets. Soviets waited for a pact with Japan to conclude to invade - they were very careful. Seeing Poland fending off Germany like that would give them a pause.
    5
  27. Land - lease was no longer in use in 1945. Soviet airforce was modern and not much weaker then allied. Who cares about navy - this is land battle. Take a look at the map and see what would you accomplish attacking from India - nothing other then waste of time and huge losses. As movie points out the main - 98% theater would be Europe.
    4
  28. ISIS, Azov, what is the difference?
    4
  29.  @_Since-1994  Well... they were.
    4
  30. If Turkey has nukes who else would want nukes? I think now Iran has an excellent case for having nukes. If Iran has nukes I bet SA will go out and buy itself some nukes. Imagine ME... with everyone loaded with nukes. And now know... these guys like wars.
    4
  31.  @СвинкаСкреппа  Not even that - multiple angles of same tank or mis represented tanks. I saw a video of "losses" of Russia where they pant V or Z on vehicles but you can clearly see some remnants of Ukrainian pixel stuff - so they even do this in Ukraine to boost morale.
    4
  32. Nah, Grippen are good but not that good. In tests with say F-22 they last like seconds. Su-35 can hold its own against F-22. Grippen is similar to F-16 class. I.e. Grippen is by far no match for Su-57 and would be toast if it cannot win BVR vs. Su-35. So his list is spot on - Grippen in capable category same as F-16 and same as say MiG-35 (preferably with AESA) which is just renamed MiG-29M2. Its one notch above older stuff like Su-27 (not upgraded) and one notch under Su-35.
    4
  33.  @nervsouly  Actually Polish government does not violate EU law. The EU says that its laws are superior to Polish laws. Poland says, show me where I signed any treaty that says so. EU responds that it was "verbal agreement". Poland says "with whom". EU says "he passed away". I.e. there are no treaties that say EU law is superior & Germany (and others) already overruled some EU laws. The difference PL makes is that it says "ALL". EU is totally out of line - no one signed anything, there is no treaty of any kind & they made it all up as to their laws being superior - when called on it they are now angry. PL is 100% correct in its position they are just doing it a very primitive way, it should be "white gloves" approach, soft, diplomatic - like Germans do.
    4
  34. Wow, Arjun is mediocre? Who knew - I thought it is the BEST TANK IN THE WORLD. Heck, even better then Bob Semple tank ;)
    4
  35.  @patrickklocek3332  No. They did not. They only ended slavery in their own countries - but not in their colonies where they were doing great. Hence why spread of communism in both Africa and Asia.
    4
  36. 2 - 3 week training was for Ukrainian national guard - not for Russians. Boot camp is about two months. Personally as someone whom been in the military, few weeks of refresher for non specialized roles is enough. Physical shape is more important. I predict 300k is for public consumption - the actual number is 500k or 600k. These guys are not GREEN - all served, most saw combat - they do not need a lot of hand holding. I expect first new units / recruits to hit the lines in the next few weeks. I expect around 100k by 6 week mark. I expect by 3 months mark almost all of 300k deployed.
    4
  37. There is no talk about logistics. Even through US is master of logistics and by far #1 in the world supporting all these troops 1000 of km away would not be easy. Also its not like UK would sit on its rear end - they would try to produce some arms or buy. One has to look at the D-day. UK was staging area - BIG. Assets were HUGE. US would not have any staging area like during D day. And even D day was a big deal moving troops just few km. Taiwan seems impossible for China - even through it is so much closer. If ignoring the losses and no nukes I agree - within a year UK would loose some land and within another year US may be in London. We have to see that it is more then 5 to 1 for US advantage. Incidentally Russia + China is... close to 5:1 as well ;)
    4
  38. Iran would secure a lot of systems for free or next to free from China and some from Russia. Nothing better to sap all US energy into a long war that would make Vietnam look cheap. Imagine trillions spent on Iraq - now multiply few times given larger area and much larger population with topography of Afghanistan.
    4
  39.  @PIRATE99A  Russia lowered interest rate to 14%. Meanwhile inflation is at over 20%. But inflation in Poland is higher then 20. We just see new figures for Turkey and they are over 70% (!!!)
    4
  40.  @wpariah  Power outages are due to them having a very rapid factory output growth after covid recovery combined with China trying to actually be green and reduce emissions. I doubt they would try to be green during a war, nor I doubt they would happily produce a lot of civilian goods.
    4
  41. LOL - the west would not politically survive if it attacked the reds & the reds would not survive politically if they did the same. You forget that a WAR is an extension of POLITICS - thus it is intimately tied. People would not fight if they did not have a good reason to fight - morale would fall to zero. Explain to a Soviet soldier why he needs to go to Paris or explain to US soldier why he needs to go to Warsaw. Churchill and UK by 1945 were of no value of any kind - only powers left were Soviets and US. What Churchill said and did was of little consequence. UK was no longer an empire - they "lost" that during the war.
    4
  42. Japan already "surrendered" before the nukes - Emperor commanded. Government just dragged their feet. Thus naval blockade would be a wise solution - they could not defy the Emperor forever.
    4
  43. Argentina 40 years ago was far stronger then today - at least in equipment. At the same time Falklands were poorly protected.
    4
  44. Ceuta would not fall - it has similar geography to Poland Hel, 1939. Brigade size unit. There was no way for Germans to break the defense. Imagine if Hel had help from mainland just few miles away - it would be impossible to take.
    4
  45.  @denzelsmashsymptom4264  You do not understand that it is not a company but brigade size unit. You also fail to understand that it does not matter Marocco has 200k or 2 million troops. They cannot use more then about a battalion at once due to narrow entry. So numbers are at parity. Mainland Spain is very close - well within artillery support range - check the map again. There certain would be air support and given larger Spanish airforce they would hold the air. I am not Spanish You do not know how artillery works - its not a nuke. Area of Ceuta is quite large & you would not be able to saturate bombard it - not even close. It would be targeted hits. But you enemy can do the same with their artillery and air assets. You do know that if your artillery can hit them - they can hit you as well, no? There were no fortifications both in Hel and Westerplatte. Air defensies of Morocco are not great. Plus air force could simply use stand off weapons. Since Spain has much, much better air defenses Moroccan air force could not touch Ceuta. You also need to read about places like Stalingrad etc. You bomb and they do not retreat - now what? Given that all Moroccan assets are within range except Chinese artillery I fail to see how they would not see losses. Bottom line is without air support and without ruling the sea there is no way it can be taken. Also Spain would simply replenish their troops - remove wounded etc. B/c Morocco would not control air nor sea to stop them. With larger Spanish economy, with larger military production I actually think Spain would do amphibious attack on Morocco and slowly take over whole peninsula and force Morocco to not only give up current possessions but even more. I.e. within say a year or two all area around Ceuta would be in Spanish hands. There is interesting idea about Singapore and its defenses. Its similar but more round and has a small ditch from mainland. If these guys think they can win - without any "mainland" support and with all their country in artillery range - Ceuta is fine. Simply they have enough assets to destroy enemy artillery through attrition.
    4
  46.  @Misterskillzz7  It was better then Blitzkrieg - look at Blitzkrieg - Germans moved much slower through Poland for example. After 1 week of fighting Russia already controls almost as much territory as Germany in 1939 did after over a month (!) I.e. Poland did much, much better in 1939 then Ukraine did in 2022.
    4
  47. Nah, so what they are NATO. US can choose to respond on its time schedule. No one talks about joining Estonia to Russia just say stopping geneocide by Estonian government. US would "react" just slowly enough for Russians to liquidate "undesirable" elements. The cease fire & move back home.
    4
  48.  @unilajamuha91  How on earth do you know what morale Russian army has? Have you done a survey? They are attacking when out numbered 2 to 1 or more. If their morale is low, what morale Ukraine has? Zero? Negative?
    4
  49. Early M1 was inferior to T-72 - without uranium plates it had much weaker armor. Certainly would be used through.
    3
  50. Pakistan never won a war against India. Previous wars show quick Indian advance. I doubt it will be "years" modern wars are not "years". Within a month Pakistan would either have to quit and surrender or use nukes. If it does not it would face more and more rapid Indian advance. I.e. writing would be on the wall. Remember that Pakistan would need similar time to organize as India.
    3
  51. I doubt Mongols would be so stupid as to do suicide run against guns. They simply would block immobile US foot unit. They dictate the terms as they are more *mobile*. If US troops wanted to get somewhere they would constantly be harassed by attacks. Eventually US forces would run out of ammo and die off. Only initial contact could be suicidal for the Mongols - when they did not know what they are dealing with.
    3
  52. Invasion of Japan is not possible due to too few LST available. Also air presence over Japan is too strong. Maybe some islands but not mainland.
    3
  53. You mean Soviet troops were far more experienced then allied troops - which would give them initial edge. Soviets also by 1945 possessed better command and control structure then allies - i.e. they had much better commanders.
    3
  54.  @lucian9274  Easy, take photos from two sides. Easy, take photos of your own tanks marked as enemy tanks. At the same time, suppress any info on your own losses. After all, how do you explain that Russians are out numbered at least 2 to 1 and attacking? It does not make sense they are loosing more, or even the same.
    3
  55.  @lucian9274  I actually tried to do that with captured Ukrainian tanks. Try it yourself. Its very difficult. And this is with working tanks. Its not like they have serial numbers. I can BTW, tell models apart. I cannot tell you whom operated it. No one really can. You can only guess from camouflage but there are so many captured Ukrainian tanks that this is not very reliable.
    3
  56. God, is this not uber simple to figure out? The bomb has GPS receiver for static coordinates. Just make it dynamic. I.e. you update coordinates in the bomb all the time till it hits. Big deal. To achieve this you simply add a receiver module, cheap. Very cheap. Main problem is the bomb may still miss the target as it simply cannot adjust - so small highly maneuverable targets are hard to kill. Also you would need some integration - the attacking aircraft needs to be integrated with the bomb to provide not just position of the ship now but predicted position in the future. Also with multiple bombs you may give multiple alternative positions. Its all simple logic design wise BUT one has to remember these bombs are SLOW. Thus only good for saturation attacks or attacks on shipping.
    3
  57.  @ZachRM95  Programmer & I worked on similar systems.
    3
  58.  @attackmaster519  In welfare you play as much as the enemy allows you to play. Iraq did not have a vast air defense system - it had a system build by the French capable of stopping limited Iranian intrusion - which it did very well - even better then specified - remember it took down over 50 aircraft. It was never intended to take on enemy as large as US & it was not operated by trained staff. Even older system in Serbia & many times smaller was not destroyed despite expending few times more Harm missiles. Armies in ME are basically welfare institutions. Society is tribal. The allegiance of the armed forces to ruler in Baghdad is based only on limited scope tribal loyalty. This is why they are called checkpoint armies. Also note that after billions spent on their training a small rag tag group called ISIS won battle of Mosul - despite defenders outnumbering them 20 to 1. But who were ISIS - many were Iraqis! Iraq did not have any "decent" armor - they had around 200 export versions of T-72, aka T-72M / T72M1 (probably) some local copies without much quality to them (downgrade) and mostly grossly outdated T-55 clones. They also had 1970s export Soviet ammo. Crews had no training with them missing shots at US tanks from just 500m (!!!) Iraq did not have any navy to speak off - few speed boats do not really count. Similar for Iran except they have few subs. Airforce as both Israel and Iran have shown was not that great. They had next to no training. It was also not that "new" - they had few new planes but mostly similar situation to tanks. Iraqi command could not command a unit larger then brigade.... But it all came down to WILL. As you can see US as everyone before it took over Afghanistan rather quickly. But after 20 years US finally lost its WILL and thus lost the war. Afghans did not loose their WILL. They have defeated the Soviets whom actually went into the bush after them - defeating US was just matter of time given their "fortify at base" idea. US also lost last war in Iraq - for "undisputed" leader of conventional welfare US is loosing all conventional wars - with few exceptions. Finally.... US lost in Vietnam and spend 1T in todays $$$ US lost in Afghanistan and spend also... same... $$$ - about 1T. This pales in comparison to Iraq - well over 2T (!!!) for another loss. So what do you think a loss in Iran would run US like? It is more then 2x Iraqi population with geography of Afghanistan. 4T? 6T? Imagine the party in Beijing! And Moscow!
    3
  59.  @greenling.  I am reapeatikng info from IMF, World Bank etc. I.e. All western sources. You can Google yourself and there it is.
    3
  60. LOL, not Russia - Ukraine. Only conscripts Russia sent to the war were from former Ukraine. Few accidental cases like a cook or similar. But nothing more. Ukraine on the other hand send whole brigades with just weeks or even a week of training.
    3
  61. Seems very likely. Then one can say Turks will have very hard time. Maybe first step should be for these 3 to piss in Turkish cup harder in Libya.
    3
  62. Soviets were ready to be nuked in return - there were multiple spots setup for backup bridges from the main bridge which would be taken out. The initial plan called for hundreds of nukes used by both sides. Plus nuclear mines to blow up Germany.
    3
  63. Re watch the video. Putin decreased storage 5x.
    3
  64. I say the other way around. Ukraine is loosing both more hardware and more people. We cannot explain with reverse of that the fact Russians are still moving forward despite being out numbered at least 2:1, and only pausing when 3:1 or more. I calculated Ukraine lost at least 300 tanks to air and helicopter attacks alone during this war so far. Russians have significant tech advantage, they have better artillery, better aircraft, better helicopters etc. This is allowing them to advance despite defender having a numerical superiority. Essentially its Ukrainian blood for a Russian tanks / helicopters etc.
    3
  65. US occupied more then half of ME - mark them as black.
    3
  66. Once the war is over imagine the boost Russia will get! Largest war in Europe since WWII won! It will be a huge boost to Russia's international prestige, to Russian people. Boost to its economy etc.
    3
  67.  @denzelsmashsymptom4264  Hel is a peninsular same as Ceuta. Despite German attempts for a month they did not get anywhere. It only surrendered after the war was totally lost - they even gat some extra artillery from ships online just few days before surrender. Did not suffer any huge casualties. Germans did use heavy artillery and air attacks for a whole month. And that is despite almost 20:1 advantage in man power - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hel As you can see taking Ceuta would be impossible without some cooperation from the Spanish. If they actually defended no chance.
    3
  68.  @denzelsmashsymptom4264  OK, you win. Do not forget there is no chance ever Israel could win with Arabs. They have more tanks, more artillery, more aircraft and like 20x more pp. Yep 2 days is all it takes LOL.
    3
  69. Actually all modern ideas are going light. Western tanks are too heavy and they are as easy to destroy as lighter tanks BUT they cost more to make & maintain. New idea is to have more autonomous vehicles that have small personnel in them or none & moving crews over to maintenance. We may see return to glass canon idea but without crews.
    3
  70. In short Australia is far and wide easier to invade then Canada. Also they cannot really make guns as Australia has zero manufacturing. Yeah, like none. Zero. They don't make anything in Australia. Its scary. I doubt it would take China "years" All they need is two bases close buy for staging. They could also use some merchant fleet. Australia is too big for tiny defenses and it does not have large "forbidden" zones where you cannot go due to land or vegetation or ice etc.
    3
  71. " You can train people quickly to use them." - video nicely explains why you cannot. When Poland purchased Abrams tanks I smiled at the estimate of when they will be battle ready. It will be few years after delivery. YEARS. If years is quick for you... You need to train basic crew operation. Then platoon level, then company, battalion and finally brigade. This is on crew side. Then you have maintenance side, people, tools and facilities.
    3
  72. If US had troops there invasion would be certain.
    2
  73. One should not under estimate Turkey but Turkey is wise not to underestimate others as well - was it Catharine the great that gave Turkey some good spanking? The aircraft has 4th gen engines from 1980s. One of the main 5th gen aircraft aspects that make it 5th gen is the 5th gen engine. Turkey does not have one... nor even close to the tech needed to get one. Turkey would need to get warm with either Xi or Putin.
    2
  74. China plays the long game. They know that unless US attacks or they make a mistake the future is theirs and US will fall off.
    2
  75. Soviet Union would have certainly tried if Trotsky was in charge. By time Stalin was in charge Soviets no longer were "exporting" revolution. Their main operations were on easy pray. Certainly taking on the west would not fall into that category. The idea was to show that Soviet System was superior - i.e. cultural victory.
    2
  76. what if... both sides surrender at the same time???
    2
  77.  @ericmyrs  Problem is that these 3 roads also mean you have 3 roads. Demined road with artillery can be used - its a clearing. What if you ignore the roads and simply... do not use them at all? Move small well armed groups to block any movement by Swedes, strike any command and control with missiles, and quickly grab massive amounts of terrain via special forces raids. Block any possible counter strikes by mining roads that Swedes need & you do not. Remove any masses of conscripts with drone tech. make sure no one knows anything using electronic warfare jamming of all communications. Today's war is not fought with lots of soldiers but with few. One gaiant forest is same obstacle to both sides. Modern war is not a charge of masses of tanks supported by masses of trucks over just 3 roads that enemy can block. BTW, 3 roads is not that bad - usually in Canada we have 1 road or 0. 0 == you fly.
    2
  78. Russia is one of the world's biggest producers of food. They will not starve. They simply will not be able to afford to buy goods in the west. As far as Putin is concerned, lower rubble means more R for each unit of gas. Payment is in R, so he has more $$$. Its a tradeoff.
    2
  79. Certainly US was not all ideal when they helped liberate France but the alternative was far and wide worse. Cubans were not ideal either - but they did brought freedom to the people. Same as Vietnamese did in their country.
    2
  80. Russia is clearly winning. I use all sources. I have no idea what are you talking about. 100% of Lugans is taken and almost 60% of Donetsk. Russia is even floating the idea of "liberating" province / republic of Kherson. Russians have soundly won battle of Izium and partially encircled the best troops of Ukraine in Donbass. Russians moved out of Kiev - whole northern front & can now throw it in the south - east. Ukraine will find it very difficult to match that deployment. Putin stated officially he wants the end or almost end by May 11th (10th).
    2
  81. In short Taiwan reserves are worth far less then that of North Korea. Maybe worthwhile in city defense only, static. Tank force is a museum. At least North Korea has some modern versions (as compared to Taiwan) of T-62. Again, both numbers and quality, NK dwarfs Taiwan. CM-32 is quite modern, but very few. CM-21 is ancient. Again, NK is better in numbers and at least even in tech. Artillery looks decent, a bit old in places but so far the best. Again, compared to NK, through its weak. Airforce look great compared to NK but problems as per video. Navy I would actually go with NK, due to huge sub fleet. Overall, its a good thing 100m separate China from ... China (Taiwan) if you want to rule Taiwan. For PRC its a water issue.
    2
  82. Not sure it is. Ukraine had larger air defenses then Germany - i.e. largest in Europe. Ukraine has most tanks in Europe, I think more then all of EU combined (would have to count). Ukraine has most APCs in Europe, would have to check, but I think all of EU is more. Main weakness is airforce. Ukraine also the largest army in Europe.
    2
  83. Most of the planet is neutral. Take for example India.
    2
  84. Sure, like that laser range finder that T-64 had over 5 years before any US tank and over a decade before any British tank.
    2
  85. Spot on. Russia would suffer less then 10k killed. Ukraine more then 30k killed. I expect "run to the river" would be 5k+ killed Russians, about 3k+ killed separatists and around 30k killed Ukrainians. Ukraine would loose total of about 250k killed, captured etc. and more or less have very little defensive capacity.
    2
  86. Its not just money from Greece but also regional interests. Turkish army is big but weak. Its economy is very dependent on EU. With war sanctions would be epic. Turkey would end up with no economy very quickly. Without any money no one would sell them weapons.
    2
  87.  @Luredreier  show me single exercise that is realistic. Just one. Come on. Do you see one? Nope. So simulator it us. Also if grippen was so great it would have more sales to neutral countries.
    2
  88.  @Luredreier  So you buying some Su-30MKI - I heard the won some red flag exercises! Lets do this logically. Grippen radar is similar to F-16V. Missiles are similar. Maneuverability is similar as Grippen uses a delta and to help it out front canards but that cannot go to much over F-16. So even if Grippen is better then F-16V it is not by much. So what do we have 1 notch higher Rafale. Better radar, better by far maneuverability, better everything. Clearly a better plane. Grippen advantage is in price. It is cheap. I advocated Grippen for Poland as they could get 2x as many and get tech transfer and offset. I advocated Grippen for Canada for same reason plus Canada mostly uses its fighters for air policing and maybe bombing some terrorists. It is unlikley Grippen will face hard opposition. As for Poland it will take a while before Russia has plenty of Su-35s and Su-57 & Grippen is even with MiG-35 AESA (MiG has worse avionics but Grippen cannot dog fight it)., Besides Grippen is not so terrible that it cannot BVR play Su-35 and if it gets close just run. Vs. Su-57 it is toast but how many will russia ever have - 100 max. New Su-75 will not arrive for a while - at least in 100+ numbers. Grippen is cool but lets not over play the hand. As for pilot training the problem is not so much $ as it is # of pilots.
    2
  89. Strange Cuba brought freedom to Africa but not at home, exact opposite of US, where they have freedom at home but deny it abroad.
    2
  90. It would be a turkey shot. Not just airforce but the navy as well. UK would be unable to block the channel with her navy as it would be all sunk with ease. Main defense by UK would NOT be flying over their own fields but ATTACK on German air fields - even the most modern jet is not that great on the ground.
    2
  91. LOL - so show us your losses - not the ones from ghost of Kiev, but real ones! Show us your 30,000 killed!
    2
  92. They forgot about that according to the west ;)
    2
  93. @A Grosclaude-Evans Russian help for Turkey against Greece? Seriously? Greece is as close to Russia as Serbia or so thus its almost certain that if Russia were to support someone it would be Greece. Besides this may force EU to drop sanctions on Russia.
    2
  94.  @tts8361  Even more - they have essentially 2 (3) types of Leopards, 2A4 and 2A5 and are upgrading to 2PL - 2A4 and 2A5 have some major differences. Same with T-72s - they have multiple versions. I doubt they ditch all T-72s, maybe just sell of older versions and keep PT-91s. Even worse, Abrams program will cost much more then equivalent Leopard 2A7 and even worse for that premium they will not have them ready sooner then Leo2 A7 - Leos would take years to build but Abrams will take years to train crews for.
    2
  95. F-22 has 2D thrust vectoring, Su-57 has 3D.
    2
  96. But what if they are actually happy and want to fight?
    2
  97. Poland sent all they could - 236.
    2
  98.  @nicopohl2060  If communism was slavery it would not be embraced by slave nations as a way out of it. Principles of communism were equality - problems were in implementation.
    2
  99.  @konfunable  It is up to African people to build their country - not anyone else - they were free to grow it, their choice not to.
    2
  100. How on Earth NZ manages to spend over 2B on defense and have, no defense??? Corruption anyone? Or these two old ships run on gold?
    2
  101. Still did not see a single video of Javelin taking out a Russian tank. Heck, other then firing at abandoned tank I have not seen a single video of NLAW firing. I have seen about 5 destroyed Russian tanks. All of 5. Not exactly large number. I am sure actual losses are much higher, could be as high as 30 - 40 by now. About half or so can be fixed if Russians want to. But given they are using old stuff that they have 1000s in storage I bet they just scrap all unless tiny damage.
    2
  102.  @senpai8435  It is not non-combat personnel. Ground forces have around 300k and 100k of that is conscripts. Airforce is 165k Navy 160k Rocket forces 50k special forces - less than 10k logistics over 50k National guard 340k border service and coast guard 170k That is > 1m.
    2
  103.  @attackmaster519  Well, US had superior weapons in Afghanistan. Spend Trillions. Lost BAD. Certainly Iran has a) better weapons b) more then 2x population and c) more then 2x land with similar geography. You argument is mostly everyone goes and attacks at any cost. In this scenario Israel would loose most wars - Egypt may have lost millions of people but eventually through sheer numbers it would win. Then again what is victory? This has to be defined - usually as meeting the objectives set at the start of the war. With that we can see that US lost almost every war past WWII. So if say US wanted to invade China and it was all 100% just conventional and even if US ignored losses and give 100% I claim it would loose. It cannot match China. China has 4x the population and at least 2x manufacturing capacity. It is also as big as US & it is 1000s of miles away making logistics a nightmare. Finally China would be defending their homes. Wars of the WWII style are in the past - no one looks at them with any "reality".
    2
  104.  @kurt5490  If US "Win" condition is say taking Teheran and holding it for a week - then yes, they would win at huge cost. Even holding the country may be possible at enormous cost. Problem here is cost. Winning war against Israel by the Arabs is quite possible - they simply cannot mobilize themselves enough to bear huge costs. There is no WILL.
    2
  105. Well, we had D-Day we can have GB-Day. Not that much different. UK economy is simply too small to fight off EU. They would quickly loose air war and get their remaining industries decimated. Once air advantage is 10:1 & enemy is disoriented and its command centers ineffective massive ground assault would begin. After a month UK would be readmitted into EU ;) This time through, without any fishing rights anywhere. All fish will be ... French (and one or two German). Scotland would be liberated...
    2
  106.  @officialJoebiden  UK does not poses enough nukes to destroy half of EU. But EU has enough to destroy all of UK.
    2
  107. Iran and Turkey are not friends. China will rather be friends with EU.
    2
  108.  @SwoleTown  China was invaded by Japan in WW2 - some even want to count start of invasion as start of WWII.
    2
  109. Iran and Israel can only fight proxy wars and it mostly looks like Iran on the offensive and Israel on defense - so marginal Iran victory.
    2
  110. No, bomb will not have a computer - at least capable one === that is expensive. The plane would do all calculations, lead etc. Bomb will be kept as dumb as possible to keep costs as low as possible.
    2
  111.  @fumega  As dumb as possible does not mean no chip or anything - you can have a controlling chip-set for few dollars. You can also have one for few hundred $. For "military grade" you have yesterdays tech at 10x the price (at least).
    2
  112. But they did not. They started with over 2000 tanks in operation or able to be taken from storage. They received over 200 so you can complain when losses exceed around 2200.
    2
  113. People over estimate the drones. It was not so much the drones as all other things combined. AM leadership was terrible. Its troops constantly on defense. Artillery did favor AZ. Drones were just icing on the cake - AM failed to acquire weapon systems that could deal with enemy flying above 4000m. All 1960s and 1970s anti air systems were obsolete.
    2
  114.  @denzelsmashsymptom4264  LOL fortified. You read too many German explanations for the action there and Westerplatte. Places with narrow access from mainland are essentially like islands. It is very, very hard to break through as your only option is frontal attack on an enemy that has fully saturated defensive line.
    2
  115.  @denzelsmashsymptom4264  Oh and you think Germans in 1939 did not have artillery or aircraft? They lost around 50 aircraft so must have flown 1000s of sorties. They used multiple BBs to shell from the sea. They used siege artillery. LOL! Here you would have friendly artillery fire to support you as well as air superiority. Also there would be anti artillery radars as well as cruise missiles for precision strikes. This is why video mentions few long range artillery systems as "hard to find". With air superiority, with artillery support and with naval support preventing any amphibious landings it would be a fortress.
    2
  116. Why? UK has little bone in the play.
    2
  117. Ummm, close air support with armored aircraft was invented by Soviets.... So I guess they had more tank busting aircraft - i.e. that had excellent ground support aircraft. Bringing Germany to fight with allies would be a huge victory for Soviet propaganda. The disaster would be on the side that attacked - how would US explain they attacked their former allay with ... help of Germans at home? Public opinion would crucify them. Do you think French and British morale would float above zero - I think it would sink lower.
    2
  118.  @REgamesplayer  We must have watched different video. Non essential tasks to fighting are in boot camp. After that you are going 100% essential. If you cut down training by half you end up with less trained crews for combat. He says doubling the size of troops to 600k is easy, but increasing tank crews 2x in less then a year is impossible.
    2
  119. 8:35 it does not have 5th gen engines. These F110 engines are OLD - they are from 4th gen aircraft and from 1980s (!!!) 4.69:1 intermediate power weight ratio - and max thrust is 73kn dry F-22 uses F119 engines. 6.7:1 (intermediate) and power is a whopping 116kn Russian weak Su-57 engine is 86.30 kN and Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.49 (dry) Russian strong engine is 108kn and Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.45:1 i.e. better than F-22. So as you can see Turkey has 4.5++ gen aircraft similar to F-15 maybe F-15X. Similar to Su-35.
    2
  120.  @miruu28  Sure, I guess both Russia and US should hire Turkish engineers as it took them 20 years each ;)
    2
  121.  @oghuzkhan5117  LOL, that would be both faster and better development than US - would Turkey consider selling this engine to backwardly Americans? With such advanced tech, why is Turkey not on Mars yet? Heck, Turkey should have space statin in orbit somewhere around Mars now. Also look at amazing development timeframe, compare to these primitive Americans - "Engines aboard Lockheed Martin's next generation F-35 fighters have been almost 30 years in the making. "
    2
  122. SA would be turned into cream in mere days ;) Jordan may be in the way by IDF would not have issues there. From border of SA with Jordan to Riyadh is very far and that would be a long march for IDF. Main defense of SA is its size - too big for IDF to conquer - too many people, too much land. I mean come on SA cannot even win in Yemen & with friends helping it. Its not the same as Taliban in Afghanistan - the Yemeni actually control land and even capital of Yemen.
    2
  123. Nah, he is still winning the war, so far no need to go overboard. Heck if you are infantry you cannot go to war as no jobs open in Russia for infantry. All taken.
    1
  124. As shown in Yemen :) Saudi Arabian army is a total joke - they are even worse then Iran or Iraq (!) - they would do well to get rid of 100% of their soldiers and hire small mercenary army of maybe 60k people.
    1
  125. As will st. Pion and St. Kornet and St. T-72 soon be blessing Ukrainians.
    1
  126. Maybe - so far its maybe. But I do not see them out of the question - if west escalates so will Russia.
    1
  127. This makes it a repeat of WWII with modern weapons. What about a modern war? War with use of Russian special forces? War with use of rapid deployment? War with deep missile strikes at command centers? War with electronic warfare? Scandinavia would have no chance as they are too geared towards fighting WWIII as it was WWII. Tactics have changed. Large numbers of reservists are of little use. Mother nature may not help you as well as it used to - see Armenia.
    1
  128. Yes with a new peace treaty.
    1
  129. But Russia did archive their objectives in Syria while US did not... So western command must be brain dead or something.
    1
  130.  God's Creature  Syria is not an oil producing nation. So such objective is a bit of a joke. The actual objective was to remove Assad and replace him with US friendly dictator. Russia prevented that. Rebels are locked into a single province and Assad controls almost all of Syria. Re read US "red lines" and what exactly they wanted.
    1
  131. Not great, not terrible - Russia's favorite saying!
    1
  132. Well, they are winning no? Even Neo Nazi Pole I saw today from Azov like unit admitted that Ukraine will loose land. If Nazi troops are saying they have no faith... then who should have faith, regular dudes? I mean Ukrainian SS lost faith!
    1
  133.  @youraveragescotsman7119  problem is you cannot sink a continent. It's not the navy that would be an issue, it would be ground based airforce. Your carrier task force would be very vulnerable to counter attack by air. Also taking out oil fields is not easy, if it was Germans would take out these oil fields when they were within tactical distance. More likely targets would be traditional far east, such as Vladivostok. But these attacks would have little to do against war in Europe. Finally Caucasus is on the black sea. It's small. Entry is through bosphorus and according to the treaty no aircraft carriers are allowed. Turkey joined NATO only later on. Even then your carrier task force is on a lake and can be attack from multiple sides from close by. If sending carrier task force was easy then British would have helped Poland in 1939, yet they determined that it was no go... Or British simply did not want to fight at all.
    1
  134.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Soviets had plenty of dive bombers and plenty of fighters. They had no issue sinking German ships. The reason Royal navy carrier did not enter Baltic sea was overwhelming disadvantage at air operations. And that is with help from nearby bases. Germans had only about max two dozen subs at sea and most not in the Baltic so that was not the issue. Nor was luck of carriers, planning for this was over 6 months. Plain and simple it would be suicide VS. German airforce. I doubt few cruisers of German navy and destroyer squadron would be an issue. Now imagine far worse black sea. At least on the Baltic you had Polish ports and neutral ports later on, places to hide or get out of range. On the Black sea the only escape would be south to Turkey, while North and East were in Soviet hands. Target rich environment which could not escape nor run away or resupply. It would be a sloughter. This is not at all like US campaign with Japan, where there was open sea and you could attack peacemeal, this will be more like full frontal attack without chance to retreat against half of Soviet airforce. Certainly Soviets would loose well over 1000 planes but US losses would be far and wide higher. Why do this when there are far easier ways to fight.
    1
  135.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Soviets could easily throw 2x as many aircraft as there are on these carriers & they would have dozens of new airfields ready before that task force even gets there. Sure these ships can throw a lot of flak - so what? They still can be sunk. Plus imagine the amount of ammo needed - how would you resupply your fleet? Oil? Food? Through paper thin Bosporus? Seriously? You do know at its narrowest its just 750m and at its widest it is just 3700m. Ignoring protests from Turkey would not prevent this from being heavily mined and/or constantly attacked. Remember to put your flak screen you need that ammo and these 80 escort carriers need lots of food for their like 80k sailors and air crews. At least on the Baltic Poles would provide food, shelter, oil, some spare parts, hospital facilities etc. Or such things could be arranged. There is a reason Soviets nor Russia today have Black sea fleet as priority - it is actually least one to get anything. Finally how far are these oil fields from the Black sea? Turns out they are on the shores of the Caspian sea roughly at least 400km each way to attack even when parked on the coast. Some may be as much as 500km each way. This will put it beyond or at reasonable combat range of carrier based aircraft, i.e. either it would be too far or they would need grossly reduced bomb load.
    1
  136.  @youraveragescotsman7119  ok so now we are attacking from Malta... You do know that most targets would be outside of the range even with reduced load. How would you get there anyways, Turkey is neutral and Bulgaria is within Soviet zone and would object to flying over it. I guess you could convince Greece. As for nukes they were reserved for cities, a WWII style nuke would do almost no damage to an oil field, these are 100km wide. You may take out a rafinery but why waste nukes when you can use regular bombers. How about attacking from British mandate of Palestine or from Iran. Trying to help you out here. At least these were nominally under UK control and UK would be with US on this one.
    1
  137. Canada will shock the world and buy J-20s - yeah, why get F-35s when we can get the J-20s at half the cost! ;)
    1
  138. Ukraine is being pushed around in Donbass slowly, every day new town or village is taken. Sometimes multiple ones. Despite sending everything Ukraine has.
    1
  139.  @UzumakiNaruto_  Sure, but they will not have meat to grind forever.
    1
  140. They do! And they had to loose more. There is no other logical explanation of what did happen and what is currently happening.
    1
  141. Do the same thing in 2025 - with current Polish government preparing for next WWII I doubt Germany could take on Poland in 2025. Keyword here is next WWII - they are not ready for "next" war - they are ready for previous war. By 2025 Poland will outnumber in modern tanks Germany 2:1. On the other hand by 2025 Poland will have no navy. Priorities.
    1
  142.    Tanks will be at German level or better - i.e. some of the best in the world. Given it now takes years to get few Leopard tanks and castings / hull are done I believe in Greece I would not have such a strong belief Germany could produce too many tanks sometime soon.
    1
  143. Not really. They made cheap copies of old US design. Same here - they are using engines from F-16 / F-15 ... tech from 1980s.
    1
  144. LOL! Good one!
    1
  145. They seem accurate - somewhat low for Ukraine through on some systems.
    1
  146. Well, it is spot on. Grippen == F-16. Why would it be better then F-16V? Both have similar avionics and BVR / WVR capability. Also same category as MiG-29M2 aka MiG-35. Again similar avionics with F-16 having an edge in BVR and MiG in WVR.
    1
  147. LOL, Ukraine started with over 1000 tanks. They could recover another 1000 from storage and got over 200 from Poland. So they could have easily lost 800 (I think its more like 900). They started with 100s of SAM systems. 91 seems reasonable - heck I saw myself images of at least 20 destroyed. I saw images of another 30 plus captured. So 91 seems ... actually low. 300 artillery is very low, cannot be that low. Ukraine started with over 3000. I think closer to 1000 artillery systems.
    1
  148. LOL. Especially Dutch response ;)
    1
  149.  @para-tanker  Exactly & you do not want too lose such $.
    1
  150.  @jondoe6926  Russians sure had far less freedom during Stalin and yet they fought rather hard - so you mean freedom made them weaker?
    1
  151.  @SvenTviking  France LOL. I think they are still thinking of their glory days of trench warfare against Germans. But forget more recent example of WWII. Sure everyone had at some point in history powerful military. So what. Look at France today.
    1
  152.  @Klliansimabras  Problem is nothing is showing French military now is any better then in WWII. On the plus side there seems to be plenty of evidence German military is not as good as the one in WWII. So maybe you have a point - French may not have improved but their rivals went down.
    1
  153.  @Klliansimabras  Well... France in 1940 had over 4000 tanks. Almost 2x as many as Germans did. Did France had very poor tanks? Not really. On the flip side... how many tanks did Soviets have in 1941? At least 22000. Yeah, vs less then 4000 German ones. (note not all 22k were on the front at start). The problem was overall training, leadership and in France morale (to be honest Soviets had two settings - Lion and white flag - they either fought till death or folded quick). French were defeated not so much by tanks or aircraft as by political maneuvering and propaganda welfare. In 1939 when their chief allay got attacked France was content to let them be smashed - imagine how things would be different is French had high morale, capable leadership and as their and Polish secret services informed them war was inevitable the prepared for counter. Imagine whole French army, even with their doctrine of tanks as support falling on Germans flank. It never even was envisioned - as there was no will to fight. French were defeated even before first bullet in WWII took flight.
    1
  154.  @Klliansimabras  Well, even if you are less skilled you can win - gay men were considered "elite forces" in ancient Greece. So yeah, if your whole force is commandos you stand somewhat better chance of winning.
    1
  155. Ukraine had over 1000 at the start. At around 50% recovery rate from storage they have more then 1000 more. They got over 200 from Poland. Russia committed 1200 tanks max - probably less, over a 1000. So both started with same #'s. I do not believe Oryx - they have purposefully not shown many Ukrainian losses as well they rely on non verified pictures of Russian losses from telegram. I seen video where Ukrainians paint Z or V on their own destroyed tanks.
    1
  156. You are too much into WWII style. Roads could be demined in seconds with artillery strike. Fortified positions eliminated with suicide drones / smart ammo. Troops could go around them through marshes. Etc.
    1
  157.  @ericmyrs  Scenario is 1:1 - they would not walk in the forest - they would simply deploy mostly via air small groups of special forces or airborne - like a company size max. They have 60k so its not a big deal. Now these especial forces job is to simply have some boots on the ground. Main push would be through use of modern tech, such as drone tech or smart ammo. Note if there are only 3 roads there is not much people living there - its not like there will be 1000s of troops to oppose. Besides, how would the opposing force get there - they have to fly as well! Yes it is not really a geo political goal for Russia and political price is too much for some forest - besides Soviets already got all they wanted during WWII. Even at the end of WWII Finland was not added to the Soyuz so they are safe as they simply do not matter enough. But if there was a need it would not be that hard mostly b/c Finnish preparations are way out of date - Fins are ready for repeat of WWII. Not for WWIII. Repeat of WWII with modern weapons could be Helsinki push that is rather easy to see. Here it all depends how well Fins are prepared but I doubt they would hold out. Russia may not be Soviet Union but it still has a punch and remember Fauda Gap in Germany was only defensible with Nukes against Soviet invasion - here we have 50km front. Russia is half of Soviet Union but so is the gap. On the other hand Finland is not half of NATO. We also should consider how would Scandinavians fight if after first week Finland is out of the war (more or less). Would they mostly go into defensive mode or try to meet Russians on the road in Finland? Knowing modern Sweden they may not fight too long due to internal weakness of the country, especially if Russian claim is they just want to "teach fins a lesson for winter war". I expect same performance from other 2 in the alliance.
    1
  158. AIM-260 is US version of Meteor. Chinese already have that, its called PL-15. As for JATM, Chinese are very close to initial operational capacity with PL-21. So it feels China is clearly leading US in missile tech.
    1
  159. Yeah, they got smoked!
    1
  160. Don't forget that China can put sped the US. They do to you what you did to the Soviets.
    1
  161.  @danielmocsny5066  Russia also welcomes foreign journalists to film atrocities committed by Ukraine! There is plenty in Mariupol alone. Check out Patrick Lancaster.
    1
  162.  @mirandadonovan1272  But I am not in Russia. Yet the wheel barrow scenario still seems real.
    1
  163.  @mirandadonovan1272  Umm, Putin is a master politician, probably the best world leader on Earth right now, at least of major power. His tactics so far are excellent. What corner? You mean he placed Ukraine in the corner? Actually Russia almost entered NATO like 20 years ago, but they wanted same status as US ;) He has almost double the support of Russian people then Biden in the US. No need to kill his opponents, he can marginalize them. Opponents cannot be dead or there will not be "systemic opposition". The concept is that there always will be opposition, its better to know who it is and control it vs. destroy it and never control it. LGBT people are disliked by Russians due to wester woke push. Zero to do with Putin. Russian people are almost certain to pick a hand picked by Putin replacement, in fully democratic elections with EU watchdog at the door. Russian people, same as Afghan people, do not feel the need to accept US ideas - they freely choose their own future, their own goals etc. Who are the Americans to tell them its wrong? Same ones that "civilized" the native people?
    1
  164.  @jackdanson2  LOL, ISIS also had no issues stomping on US trained and US equipped Iraqi army. Heck, they did it faster, and more outnumbered. Hence we should conclude ISIS >> US military, no?
    1
  165. NATO did not achieve air superiority over Serbia after 2.5 months. Serbs were flying low and hitting targets in Kosovo while F-15s were above them.
    1
  166. Same with AM-AZ war - 6 weeks.
    1
  167. Lets be hones, the run to the river would take a max of three weeks, probably less - similar to Iraq. Then Russia should consider removing the bulge & leaving Kiev to western Ukraine. Aim would be to create separate Ukraine, not to enlarge Russia. Whole active phase of the campaign should not last more then about a month. Most inner city conflict would be avoided. Losses would be 3-5 times higher for Ukraine. Russia is currently winning the "war" so no worries of any invasion. They keep it up till April & see results. Ukraine should go bankrupt by then.
    1
  168. Russia is simply not able to win this against 1000s of "reinforcements" from EU and US. I mean if you read postings by people you would think Ukraine is winning the war not loosing badly.
    1
  169. Of interest is just how much India defensive assets are there and how little Chinese are. BUT Indian assets are of very low quality. When I was in India I seen them first hand, 3rd world army. Main problem for India is that its large army is simply poor at organization compared to the Chinese - they are slow to mobilize, slow to move / not great at communications etc. Chinese are "too fast" for Indians. The recent clashes proven Chinese can quickly get large force on... AND these clashes were close to Indian base! Or at least where tourists were forbidden. Strange that on Chinese side tourists can run around - India no, military all over the place.
    1
  170. Unlikely - US will let EU handle this one - just will provide political cover for the conflict (i.e. asking for cease fire).
    1
  171.  @UAGoWSuplexer  What other resources - all other resources will be on Russian side - all they have is food - and EU is not friendly with food - EU produces more food then it needs.
    1
  172.  @Qu1seR  Why would Russia pay anything? Why would anyone be dumb enough to use Russian frozen money? Russia will then simply not pay back any loans and make them null and void as well as start selling western property in Russia. This will be way more $$ then frozen stuff.
    1
  173.  @reggieshark  You had that economy.
    1
  174.  @UAGoWSuplexer  Negative - look at the map. Most resources are to the right of Dniper.
    1
  175. They only had few nukes of tiny size and marginal air superiority to inferior personnel and personnel training as well as inferior armor and inferior artillery. Nukes would only play minimal role in 1945 / 1946.
    1
  176.  @mikecollard3783  the 72h goals were mostly made up by CNN. Granted Russia failed in say Kiev rather badly - but that is just one front.
    1
  177.  @colinjohnson6454  Yes, mostly smaller patrol boats and lots of subs. Plus their two fleets cannot support each other. They do have two old frigates. However, their sub fleet is massive. A lot of it is small but relatively modern. Sure they cannot be much of a threat say few hundred miles from the shore - but they were not designed for power projection as much as for coastal defense. Main issue for these small subs is their sensor power - they make it up with their sheer numbers and the fact they are mostly hunting for surface ships in close proximity to home. This is vs. say Russian subs hunting US carrier groups in the ocean. Finally their larger subs, through almost as old in some cases as Taiwan were upgraded with missiles and can project power in a strange 50s meets modern times way. Since both NK and Taiwan would be totally taken over by enemy aircraft it reasons NK sub based fleet would survive quite longer and be a huge threat vs. that of Taiwan.
    1
  178. Russia (as is US) is about keeping the balance. Russia would not allow China to fall - without China Russia would be a bit... alone.
    1
  179.  @pratikmohite6202  Russia - India arm deals have very long tradition. China is main competitor to Russia's arms sales. This does not mean geopolitics is affected - its just one little business - how about 100 of billions spent on oil and gas from Russia to China? Not so much to India.
    1
  180.  @wunhonglee8952  If you ever go to parts of former Soviet Union you will realize that for Russia breakup was one of the best things that could happen. Russians had to work very hard to keep others fed. Even Putin fully acknowledges this and has no ambition to take over any poor countries - even when asked (!).
    1
  181.  @tarun_6864  Since 2010 China is the largest trading partner of Russia, surpassing Germany. China is about 6x bigger trading partner for Russia then India.
    1
  182.  @tarun_6864  I was in Pamirs twice and neither one was in Russia. These two republics have lots of issues - China is least of their problem.
    1
  183.  @tarun_6864  Not very big actually - trade has been decreasing now for over a year. So far this year it accounts for 280B (both ways) and was about 450B last year. Which is just over half of US - EU trade. EU deficit with US is the same as US deficit with China. Just got to show how one sided US is.
    1
  184. Bye - don't let the door hit you on they way!
    1
  185.  @СвинкаСкреппа  Sure, just watch videos and count as well as use common logic by comparing forces committed like CNN or other news. Then look at the front line - exactly what Binkov did.
    1
  186. Depends on versions. T-90M quite capable with good armor and good fire control - probably equivalent to around A6 standard or A6+. T-72BM3 (depending on sub variant) is similar to Leopard 2 A4 - maybe some very upgraded ones to A5. T-80s have not been upgraded too much - latest upgrade is "meh" and I do not see it much more then A4. T-14 in this would be like mythical A9 - if it delivers. Through I doubt this would be intense tank on tank conflict. Russia would use modern tech to quickly eliminate enemy opposition. Lots of movement would be in the air, or if on the ground through marshes etc. Most Leo would be destroyed through the air using smart ammunition. Scandinavian countries are too much geared for WWII while Russia is already in WWIII.
    1
  187. Ukraine?
    1
  188.  @timothygermann780  Most of these allies would gladly sell to both sides. The only allies that would refrain from doing so are SK and Japan and Canada. Still at least 2x to 1x advantage for China in heavy stuff. You cannot have 3.5x dominance over China as that would bring world manufacturing over 100% :) China accounts for around 1/3 of the planet and most of this is in heavy stuff - good for war effort. Most of US stuff is light, not so good. Even if you count just $$$ China is worth more then US + Japan + SK + Canada taken together.
    1
  189. Nah, they would just move in temporarily to clean up the place of undesirable elements and move out. Sort of a slap on the face.
    1
  190.  @Nothing_._Here  Nothing did happen in 1993 with Baltics. In near by Russia they had a coup.
    1
  191.  @vilzupuupaa4680  Like they were in 1940? LOL!
    1
  192. Russia can bring back maybe 3000 more tanks, maybe 3500. Ukraine is mostly clapped out. They do not need to equip new units with heavy gear - all they need is light infantry. Ukraine now has at least 2:1 advantage in numbers. So to even things up, you make it 1:1 - at 1:1 Russia will clean the floor with Ukrainians.
    1
  193.  @JosePineda-cy6om  You know Fins were part of mother Russia as a dutchy thus they had rather strong links to Russia as well as rest of Scandinavia.
    1
  194.  @Lorian667  Which does show how advanced Soviet tanks were.
    1
  195. German army today is too small to win in 1945 towards the end - too few people.
    1
  196.  @jackblack2194  Actually today's Polish army would have a fair chance to defeat German invasion in 1939 if they had few months notice. For a 1939 tank it does not matter if it is hit with a round from old T-72 or new Leopard 2 A7. Poland has about 4x as many tanks as Germany today and has 1000s of IFV. I.e. Polish army today has more armor then the army that invaded Poland in 1939 at least from the west.
    1
  197. Why, in recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan according to Oryx attacking Azeri forces lost 3x less... in the mountains (!) If Russian lost more equipment do tell me how is it that they are a) still attacking b) still attacking despite 2 to 1 disadvantage in numbers?
    1
  198. Yep, fake news. Russian tank production is not dependent on any western components. Who makes this stupid shit up? I mean you have to be epic stupid to make such claim.
    1
  199. Soviet Navy and Russian for that matter is costal defense with subs.
    1
  200.  @justryoku8761  Why would anyone attack Turkish mainland? The fight would be over drilling rights & would involve mostly navy and airforce.
    1
  201. Ummm, basic T-64 in late 1960s had 115mm and in 1980 we had them all with 125mm and T-72s with 125mm. Both of these easily out ranged 105 - hence why M1 got its main gun replaced to 120mm.
    1
  202.  @w0mblemania  They did not take Kiev b/c it seems they were as shocked to go as were Ukrainians. Notice how well things went down south vs. North. Morale was good. This is a total BS. Same as training. We can see that they resisted being kicked out by UA troops even when out numbered at least 4:1 sometimes 5:1. I think one person is to blame for poor decision making, and that is Putin whom make "snap" decision to invade. Down south they just opened envelopes. Up north they had lots of issues - even with air force - ground setup.
    1
  203.  @benc9802  Well, some towns were non mountain forts - every house is connected to every other house underground. Lots of concrete used. They are heavily fortified. Like ... super heavy.
    1
  204.  @Draconisrex1  Use so called pigeon hole principle. Basic math. You have 200k Russians and for them you have 400k Ukrainians. By that principle, there has to be situation where there are more Ukrainians then Russians. About half of Ukrainian army is in Donbass. Most of troops form republics are in Donbass (95%) Russia had to use like what, 50k in the south given territory they are holding? They had 30k in Belarus. They need at least 10k+ in Donbass just for support role. But that leaves only 10k in Kharkiv front. So the whole northern front is maybe 30k, Kharkiv 20k and Crimea 40k. You seriously are telling me, Ukraine had just 30k of troops in Kiev area, Chernihiev and whole north east???? They given away like how many rifles in Kiev????
    1
  205.  @celebrim1  Russia could not send 74 vs. Kiev as its total forces are 100k. I think I calculated above 30-40k for whole northern front - i.e. the whole thing that retreated was just 30-40k. Probably 30k. We know the 60km convoy or whatever you want to call it later on was 12k. So maybe when they moved some troops from Kharkiv front later on they had maybe 45k-50k with some chechens. Your math is impossible. Reason is that Ukraine outnumbered Russians and still does in this war - currently roughly 2 to 1. So it would mean, if you are correct, that on some other front Ukrainians out numbered Russians 10:1. Which I find hard to believe. I mean there is only so much you can do with total force of 100k. Plus around 10k Chechens and later on 5k wagner / others. If Russian forces and chechens (all 10k) accounted for 74k, then it would mean whole kharkiv, support of Donbass and whole Crimea was just 36k troops! If we remove say 15k for Kharkiv at the very least, and even tiny number like 5k for Donbass we are left with impossible number of just 16k for Crimea - they probably need at least 10k now to even hold the territory. Please be reasonable.
    1
  206.  @Luredreier  You can go and see its combat record in DCS. Standard F-16 like plane. I trust a simulator far more then exercises such as "red flag" or similar.
    1
  207.  @LazyBastard675  If that was true we would see sales to neutrals. But we do not. Also Sweden does not have high tech.
    1
  208.  @LazyBastard675  If that was true for everyone - hence I said Neutral - small countries would not sell arms - including lots that Sweden sells. Really? Grippen sales are public. I do not see big sales - it is not even close to anyone from France - supposedly superior aircraft cannot sell even through its cheaper. Its marketing hype only. Once it goes head to head in evaluations it falls short. It is only bought as a budget aircraft. Main strength of grippen is that it is cheap and there is full tech transfer. Look at what they are doing to Canada - I mean they practically offer it for free compared to F-35. No airforce that expects to fight has bought grippen - major customers such as India - which needs a light fighter - avoided it. Even when they were desperate and very low on $$$. India went with French. Supposedly inferior and far more expensive. Again Saab is offering it for next to nothing, sending unsolicitated bids with not just full tech transfer, but also huge offsets and investments. So why Grippen cannot win anything given that it is so good, so cheap, offers huge offsets unmatched by anyone? Even their good buddies Finds chose, inferior, according to you F-18. Now Fins are again aiming to replace F-18 and we have Grippen x2 - would not be shocked if it lost again. Even if you family does not want it, must be not that great. I only look at grippen as a mid capability low cost fighter whose main strength is its price to what you get ratio. For about 1/2 intial price of F-35 you get aircraft that can do 85% of what F-35 can, plus 25 year ownership is like 1/3. So billions saved. It is based on same principle as say MiG-29M - very cheap, mid performance, cheap maintenance.
    1
  209.  @LazyBastard675  Grippen was an alternative to F-35 as per Saab marketing. So sure I can. You have a point with Fins but not with India, as Indian one was few years ago. They are re-running it again as 2.0.
    1
  210.  @LazyBastard675  Sweden uses mostly US tech that is not secret for non NATO country to use in Grippen. It is simply not financially possible for Sweden to develop a lot of stuff on its own. They don't have billions and billions to do so. Thus they use off the shelf stuff. The ones that use marketing a LOT are Swedes which made every troll out there believe that Grippen is great yet it for some reason is hated by people that acutally buy it. Even I am for a grippen - on price alone. For Canada I advocate Grippen - as a less capable but cheaper alternative to latest F-16. Sure its less capable but so what, marginally only and for bombing terrorists its great. Canada will not fight a defensive war on its territory at least not without US support - so Grippen would be escorted by F-35s for bombing runs - which it is great at. US will have F-16s for a long time - so its not like Grippen will be junk in next 20 years. Yet at 1/2 price of F-35 and 1/3 operational cost and tech transfer and offset its real project cost is 1/4 of F-35. Same deal for Poland, except Poland actually believes it will fight Russia - so Grippen is not seen as capable in the air vs. latest Flankers or new Su-57 or upcoming stealthy light fighter. BUT only 32 F-35s without any offset would mean program that can get Poland for same cost 20 years down the line of around 80 grippens. That would give a large sortie ratio for Grippens vs. so few F-35s. No matter how good F-35 is it cannot clone itself. Besides poor air capability of grippen can be somehow managed with sensor synergy on local territory - i.e. Grippens would quickly die over Russia - but for defense only they may be OK. For Poland, more so then India, political factors can be said to play major role. For Canada, there is little pressure as compared to Poland - so one can expect a fair evaluation. If Grippen looses despite 4 times price advantage its not a good opinion.
    1
  211.  @LazyBastard675  If you believe that Grippen is so good you are easily manipulated by marketing. It cannot be that good as it has basic off the shelf stuff. It badly looses to Eurofighter and to F-35. It also looses to latest F-16V in almost all aspects except for maybe dog fighting (which F-16 looses to MiG-29). There are plenty of others - i.e. Grippen is not that great. Its strengths are not its performance, but its price to performance. Same as T-90 MBT, it may not be great but for the price is the best selling tank in the world right now.
    1
  212.  @LazyBastard675  Oh for sure it will be less - Canada has a lot of non US equipment and is totally fine with it. If it was so political Canada would have had F-35s by now. Also there was a lot of sanctions in air industry - this is the reason Canada did not buy anything US made. I know both countries very well, both from military and political side.
    1
  213.  @LazyBastard675  Dude, red flag is a joke and marketing ploy. In it Su-30MKI owned F-22. I take DCS simulation over red flag any day. The off the shelf components are indeed from some of the fighters I am talking about BUT not the very best. Certainly it has no F-35 quality radar or same latest pods as Eurofighter has. Reason is they cannot be shipped easily to anyone. Even what it has was vetoed by UK so no sales to Argentina. No one will easily give you latest tech - you could not buy F-22 engines even if you were US friend and F-35 program is well vetted. Go back to you red flag where today one fighter wins 100 to 1 and tomorrow it looses 200:1. F-16 has better networking then Grippen NG as the system existed for some time now and has elements from F-35 and F-22 - it is better tested & far more $$$ was spent on it. All modern NATO fighters can use smart weapons. Certainly its RCS is no better then other 4.5 gen fighters and kind of lags behind full on 5th gen.
    1
  214.  @LazyBastard675  feeling is mutual.
    1
  215.  @jooger69  If they get to the number of 72 - they are in no hurry. Why? Su-35 does the role and does it cheaper & they do not need so many long range strike aircraft. Heck US has now less then 200 with no plans to have more & they are replacing them soon with 6th gen (already announced) and I bet total will be around 100 planes. So 72 for Russia is a huge number. What Russia will have is the equivalent to the F-35 - same as everyone else in large numbers. Only country that will have large number of Su-57 / F-22s is China - mostly b/c their capability dwarfs everyone else & I also bet they will soon get their F-35 equivalent. Notice a pattern yet?
    1
  216.  @Hejhå-h2f  LOL, the G limits are official data for many planes. We know actual G limits posted by actual manufacturer. And we know we don't have materials to go much above that anyways. We also know actual speeds of said aircraft. We know exact engine thrust etc.
    1
  217. Same as Zielinski and his Nazi army.
    1
  218. Also 95% of Russians, including all opposition support Crimea takeover. Even pro western opposition. Even pro pro pro western.
    1
  219. Holodomor was not a gendercide like holocaust was b/c Holodomor was not targeted at just Ukrainian people - it was a stupid communist move, later on copied in China. About half of the victims were pp on territory of present day Ukraine. As to the Jews in Israel they are descendants of Jews that lived on territory of old Polish state, whose big part is present day Ukraine. I.e. there were never too many Russian Jews or German Jews etc. almost all Jews in present day Europe are from old Polish state (80%+). Hence why almost all Jews that are 70+ today speak Polish - at least I never met single one that did not speak some Polish.
    1
  220. Why would Russia want problems, at least for itself - it only wants problems for US.
    1
  221. Nah, this is "current talk" - there were no issues deploying troops during the crisis of 1980s in Poland. My uncle was in the army. Poland's task was taking out rather minor NATO - like doing some amphibious attacks (hence so many ships of the class) and also taking out Austria. No one would switch sides if all of their loved ones were just vaporized by NATO. Would you join your enemy if they just killed your mom?
    1
  222. Given Polish current leadership I expect Poland to threaten Russia with invasion by 2025 ;) By 2025 Poland's forces set for WWII style combat would be by far and wide strongest in EU. Close to combined strength of France + Germany. Baltics would offer only token resistance I do not expect it to take more then few days to make a narrow corridor. Other than strong Polish reaction I fear Baltics would be gone. Maybe not forever but for a month or two till "agreement" on Russian withdrawal would be reached. I doubt Finland would be stupid enough to go for continuation war - they know how last one ended. Once peace was secured in the Baltics Russia may be left to "deal" with Finland. More likely is Ukraine. Realistically it would be up to US. This is the most realistic scenario of war in EU - Baltic leaders in Estonia and Latvia going full Hitler on Russian population and forcing Putin to respond (as EU is too stupid to do so). In such case outside of Poland do not expect much EU involvement.
    1
  223. One should not use Arab nations to see how things would have gone. Remember many of these Arab states now have US equipment and things do not exactly look great for them.
    1
  224. Actually Finland with some exceptions is not that cold. It is warmer by far then Canada and Russia. At least where people live. Norway is down right tropical.
    1
  225.  @reisen1932  Well, they did help 20 years ago with tanks and aircraft but since then not much help - at least the Leo2PL is not subsidized by Germany in any way. I admit a lot has to do with Polish government that is not exactly "nice".
    1
  226.  @huntingrunner  What do you mean PL has to become true democracy - it is true democracy - it is the world's 2nd democracy after US and before France. PL government mistake is they are not playing soft with EU and not making alliances in EU. They are like elephant in china shop.
    1
  227.  @nervsouly  But is PIS doing that? They are standing up to EU for their totally out of line requests regarding EU law supremacy. Only "big guys" in EU don't seem to regard EU law supremacy - something little guys should take for granted... so how exactly is Poland not standing up for freedom? Or maybe it is standing up more then others?
    1
  228.  @nervsouly  well I am not in Poland. My rights are removed quickly in Canada. But I was born under communism. So I know when bondage is applied. You were born in the west. So you have no clue when strings are pulled. So you don't know you are a puppet.
    1
  229.  @kapitanbumm344  US, Poland, France, order of democracy on Earth via constitutional reforms.
    1
  230.  @kapitanbumm344  Why? There is no hard and fast rule here. The changes are count are these to constitution and are "modern". Anyone can make some rules and start making some claims - I mean the British point out to a deal they signed with a king. Greeks can point out they started the concept - at least written it down. What I count are constitutional changes that give set of some modern guarantees - these were not present anywhere in such complete form as in say US declaration. Of course neither of the three I mentioned are perfect, but at least they are a modern attempt - one has to point out that slavery was still a thing in the US as an example. But at least there was an aim. Perhaps one create a point system, and if something scores X on freedom index, it can be considered.
    1
  231. This one would be very interesting - France + Greece vs. Turkey. Greece would loose a lot of small islands for sure but would Turkey loose Northern Cyprus? I doubt French have even close to the required back bone.
    1
  232.  @swisscheese1629  If they had million soldiers, and Russia has per CNN only 80,000 plus 70,000 allies why Ukraine not winning? And winning big?
    1
  233. Same way you guys fought to the end against Germans?
    1
  234. Turkey made - maybe - a 4.5 gen aircraft that is yet to actually fly. France makes 4.5 aircraft that fly now for like what, a decade?
    1
  235. Nukes, not being part of the war. Stuff like that.
    1
  236. LOL! With 1980s engines ;) TB-2 known as the flame of Ukraine ;) Again copy of first US combat drone ;) Do you think people in the west are stupid or something?
    1
  237. Russian support for war is at 70%. No one is overthrowing Putin and if they did, its to pick someone better in war fighting.
    1
  238. Overall Taiwan should drag its feet on reunification. Any stomping its ground means PRC will take them over by force if not today then in 10 or 20 years. That is inevitable. But feet dragging could make it 50 years or more. Or maybe even never (!)
    1
  239.  @darkprofile  Umm, that was, 100 years ago. In WWI both were on the same side. Of note is that the main friction between Greeks and Russians is due to the later selling arms to Turkey. Greece is very friendly with Armenia and is also a Russian customer. With Greece being in EU Russia gains influential friend.
    1
  240. Oh, bullets were plentiful - at least 2x (more like 3x) as many as NATO had.
    1
  241. It is quite possible that Iraq would be a walk through it has no military capability to speak of. Local militia would favor Iran. So more likely scenario is full on passage of military from Iran to Syria and most of Iraq on Syrian side.
    1
  242.  @salamyaya162  It is certainly more on Iranian side then on US side, at least when no force was used against it and it had free will. What does buying Turkish drones have to do with it? Does Iran sell drones? Even if Iran were to sell drones Iraq cannot buy them as any such purchase would make US very, very, very angry.
    1
  243. And because he "thought" these things for 8 long years he: 1. Sanction proofed the economy. 2. Invested heavily in the military - industrial complex to support long war. Putin did all these preparations ... and now is clearly winning the war.... so I fail to see how Russia lost everything. Did US loose everything in WWII as well? How about WWI?
    1
  244.  @eckhardt76  And you do know that Nazi Germany managed to build that huge army in less than a decade due to US investment, do you?
    1
  245.  @HyperNova48  Ukraine has shown that with their S-300 they can down a lot of missiles. And that is with 1980s (late) tech. China certainly has better system, maybe not S-400 level but certainly that of a patriot. US has very few anti-missile systems or anti Air. US does not even have any mid range systems at all. US has precious few mobile short range systems. US is an attacker, defense is not really US thing. I am unsure what "coast" has to do with it. It does not matter where things are. They are all well within missile range of both parties. China can easily out produce US and has easily far better defense capability. China also easily has more missiles as wars have shown US stocks are low. Compare US stocks to Russia is a joke as Russia has proven they have way more in its current war in Ukraine. I think you are way over estimating missile damage. Through they are precise they are single warhead which can be solid or cluster. Factories are immense. It took 1000s of hits to soften up industrial areas of Mariupol. Factories in China are just as vast - you would need at least few dozen missiles to disrupt a factory making say steel & at least 100+ to demolish it. No country on earth has that capability. No country has caring capacity for missile. Also as far as missiles go most would be low flying cruise missiles for which you need point defense systems... you know, these that US has ... zero of. Chinese, as Russians today, as Americans, are not willing to die for CCP, Putin and Biden. They are fighting for their nation states. In industrial war US has same chances against China as Germany had vs. US in WWII. Numbers are similar. I.e. none.
    1
  246.  @HyperNova48  Chinese output in production is about 2x that of US. And in heavy industries more close to 3x or 4x. I.e. Chinese could make 3 to 4x as many tanks as US easily. Chinese car manufacturing is easily 2x that of US. Chinese electronics manufacturing is easily 10x that of US. The only temporary parity US could have is in aircraft manufacturing, but not for long. Main US cities are coastal as well. China is as insulated from foreign trade as US - its one of the most resistant to trade attack nations on the planet. Also Chinese trade is mostly through land. Most drones are made in China. Turkish drones have proven (no surprise) not effective against Russian Anti Air systems. Crippling sanctions? US could not even cripple Russia ;) Face it. The era of US dominance is over. Its the time of China. China is not alone vs. the west. She has the might of Asia. Its the west vs. about 4x its size.
    1
  247.  @HyperNova48  US was sole global superpower for a brief period. Now we can clearly see US is in 2nd place and balance of world power shifted to Beijing. China 1:1 without nukes would win the war against US since it can out produce it multiple times over. Chinese also have far more experience making things then US and have capability to easily make more. Accept the truth. The age of US is over. The age of China has started. You can believe it or not. That is up to you. You clearly never been to China, never seen its power and its factories etc. You never seen its industrial might that dwarfs US.
    1
  248. Nah, last time Russia was close to collapse China sent a life line. They cannot loose Russia.
    1
  249. Ukraine has higher corruption then Russia, so I doubt it.
    1
  250. More likely Egypt would join Greek - French union.
    1
  251. I think its logical that Ukraine lost at least twice as many tanks as Russia. Also at least twice as many people (even including Donbass militia) There is simply no other logical explanation.
    1
  252. Soviets mostly took a large hit as they went after insurgents into the hills while NATO just fortified itself in their bases. I still remember a Taliban commander saying on TV 10 years ago "We defeated Soviets and they were far better soldiers the Americans, so we will defeat US as well" - flanked by 2 former US soldiers ;)
    1
  253. Was not an issue during WWII.
    1
  254.  @1202burton  Combat fatality was few percent - not sure who said 55% - that is even higher than submarine duty. KIA was few percent. Around 50m plus died in WWII - this includes civilians. Combat KIA now are fraction of a percent. What are you smoking?
    1
  255.  @patrickweaver1105  b/c Russians aimed a bit too high, the article 30 engine is even more efficient (on paper) then then one in F-35. That is a giant leap to make.
    1
  256. Without nukes it is an easy win for Warsaw pact. No one would start war in 1989 - unrealistic. A real start could be 1975 or 1980. Germans estimate in the 1980s it would take max 4 weeks to take Germany. There was a strong push for last stand in Spain - which would be impossible to take. Also question of French neutrality. Finally NATO planned to just blow up Germany with nuclear mines. Using WWII to estimate casualties is a joke - why WWII - why not 30 year war ;) If non nuclear by day 60 we would have Soviets in control of France and Germany and taking most of other NATO other then Spain. If Spain NOT in NATO yet more or less total Soviet victory except UK - which cannot be taken. Nukes made Soviet victory not attainable. Note 100s of nukes were to be used in the first days of any war.
    1
  257. Soviet tanks love wet stuff. All of their armored vehicles can swim. Russia is a wet land. Market Garden failed b/c of idiots in British command. Heck the Polish brigade commander said the plan is idiotic but was overruled and vengeful Brits even blocked his military pension. So much for being right.
    1
  258.  @nicopohl2060  Every country in the world is becoming more and more socialist, even the US. All of Europe embraced socialism and they are fine, some even very fine. Switzerland is quite socialist, with wealth tax, yet it is consistently either at the #1 or #2 spot as far as total wealth per capita is considered.
    1
  259.  @nicopohl2060  No I am not. In market socialism people co-own means of production. As the government expands its ownership of services it expands the economy based on co-owned production. I.e. the bigger the public sector the bigger the socialist based economy. Swiss are close to what is called a Social Democracy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy there is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model As you can see we have plenty of socialist countries and they actually score better in say press freedom then US - they certainly are seen as far less tyrannical then US.
    1
  260.  @nicopohl2060  I was born under socialist regime in Poland. I now live in Canada. I can assure you when you compare apples to apples Canada is more socialist today then early 1980s Poland.
    1
  261. "victory is on the side of the rightous" and hence Russia will prevail!
    1
  262.  @grandayatollah5655  I estimated total war losses at 200 before start of this and was told that is way too high (and at least half of these to be repaired). I guess I may have been wrong. We see by the end of this - maybe.
    1
  263. Main problem for Egypt - luck of will to fight. I told once an Egyptian, that if they all picked rocks they would stone Israel - no guns needed. Without this will to fight hard Egypt is a paper tiger. That is the problem - every simulation on earth since WWII has Arabs winning - but they just cannot pull it off.
    1
  264. Same for Ukraine - lots of evidence of war crimes but only Ukraine has shown us 3 videos of POW execution - so for Ukraine we have clear and undeniable war crimes.
    1
  265. LOL. You have cool imagination. If there is a fight between Russia and US tactical nukes will quickly get involved.
    1
  266. For Ukrainians.
    1
  267.  @CHMichael  You can have a backup as current missiles - most likely radio command. I suspect this is against targets that cannot exactly defend themselves too well, such as freighters. Or smaller naval ships.
    1
  268. Maybe India comes to its senses with its money pit development of a 4th gen fighter and simply invests into this - I would bet this will fly sooner as well. Turkey may want to join in as partner - they have their own project but may want to glean some stuff from this.
    1
  269. Maybe. But having light infantry weapons like Javelin is no match for a tank.
    1
  270. Yep, Soviets had at least two spare bridges for each existing one on Odra river.
    1
  271.  @peterb9038  Holodomor is not a genocide as it does not fit the definition of one. Genocide is a targeted attack against one ethnic group, which Holodomor was not, as the Ukrainians amounted to at most 50% of the victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
    1
  272. Germany gave them a year.
    1
  273. Actually Soviets were (as well as satellites) overflowing with spare parts and spare bridges and spare everything. Ammo was kept at least 2x NATO reserves. The joke was that NATO countries did not have a lot of ammo stored as they knew they will be overrun before they get to use it all. On Oder river each bridge had at least 2 spare locations - the concrete stumps are still there today.
    1
  274. LOL, West is running out of weapons. Not much will be sent now as there is nothing to send. Worse Ukraine is running out of people thanks to poor decision making.
    1
  275. Initial plan called for 100s of nukes used mostly by NATO. France would be a minor player in this war - a bit bigger then say Poland. There was no win scenario for NATO without Nukes. Hence crazy idea of nuclear mine field - blowing up all of Germany. NATO was not about to just nuke in Germany but also in Poland and all over Warsaw pact. I think not nuking France b/c French have nukes would go out the window in the first 24h. Any work with neutral France was to simply limit NATO response - it is hard to believe that Soviets would manage to take Spain - even if it took few weeks to take out Germany and few more weeks for France uber extended nuked lines and mountains of Spain would prove 99% too hard. So why go there - make France neutral - an obstacle to NATO as much as to Soviets and consolidate Germany / Italy etc. I think it becomes clear that any war was simply not worth it for anyone. Tiny limited mini wars were of little payout and of high risk. Soviets just limited themselves to liberating different nations through proxy wars. This mostly had negative effect for colonial powers, which US was not.
    1
  276.  @jpc7118  Myth of France or UK as major players died with WWII - especially France. France is by far not the strongest army in Europe today. I venture Russia is. I mean seriously, France has just 400 tanks total ;) Out of which just over 200 are in service (rest in storage). Also France only has wheeled APCS numbering less then 1000 unless you count armored cars as well. Army size is just around 115k. Air force has 200 jets but only half are modern. This is roughly similar land fire power as Poland. Poland has a bit more pp 144k, far more tanks & more modern (especially with 250 Abrams added) and just touch less modern fighters (F16 plus F-35) (80 vs 100). So much so for "French power". If not for Adolf Poland today would be roughly the same size country France is. In 1939 France had just few million pp more then Poland.
    1
  277.  @jpc7118  So what - its Frances business whatever it wants to waste French tax payers money on such adventures.
    1
  278.  @jpc7118  The official number of tanks in France is over 400. Where do you have data there is more tanks? Russia has about a 1000 modern tanks, same as US. Given weak armor on French tanks I doubt they will have issues destroying them - after all their main opponent is Abrams which has lots of armor and is very heavy. I would bet 100 USD Su-35 can easily defeat any junk over French skies. Not to mention latest Su. France is now behind China in aircraft development and has no 5th gen fighters active or in end development. Mirage 2000 is old - same old as oldest stuff Russia has in active service. Year of design is 78. This is what like 3 years younger then the oldest Russian? This is what you are proud of? Seriously? Maybe you should compare yourself to Germany not Russia ;)
    1
  279.  @jpc7118  If you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35 you can clearly see that comparable aircraft to it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale so Russians have Su-35 to oppose it. Both are very similar through Su-35 has better by far maneuverability. F-22? Seriously? That is 5th gen, French fighter is 4.5 it is not stealth aircraft and is not even a full match for Russian Su-35! What do you mean French did not surrender in 1940? Ehm, the railcar? Hello! French do not know what harsh occupation means - you need to go to central Europe for that.
    1
  280. Poland in 2023 is much weaker than Poland in this video from 2020. About half strength. Poland in 2023 has far and wide fewer tanks than in 2020 as well as fewer aircraft and much weaker air defenses. Not to mention weaker artillery. Try Poland in 2030 when it is stronger.
    1
  281.  @patryknajbor7990  LOL WHAT. Poland in 2020 had more tanks, more artillery, more aircraft than today. As per official data from Polish ministry of defense. I mean come on, Poland given Ukraine over 300 tanks. 100s of IFVs. 100s of artillery systems. Multiple aircraft and helicopters. Lots and Lots of ammo. 10s of 1000s of anti armor systems (total RPG is around 100k units (!!!)). Also multiple anti air systems. It will take years to rebuild Polish army to pre Ukraine war status.
    1
  282. He means non upgraded ones - old avionics. So on par with old F-16s / F-15s etc. But Grippens (new ) all have better avionics.
    1
  283. I been to both countries few years ago. Their military (both) is terrible by western or Eastern standards. The war would be similar to Iran-Iraq war - where Iraq === Chile and Iran === Argentina. After a lot of fighting and killing nothing would change.
    1
  284. Yeah, send Germans first - they have previous experience!
    1
  285. Wait, did US ... lost to Vietnam? You know, people that never seen ... a toilet seat? People that lived in ... shacks. Was it really US that lost? Shame on US.
    1
  286.  @patewing5808  Relax, most pp know this - he was just baiting you into writing all of this. Most people know that the only thing that would have stopped Soviets is nukes, and a lot of them. Maybe not stop but make any advance a bit without meaning. I mean why fight for some still glowing German or French town.
    1
  287. As a kid in the 80s most Germans optimistically though it will take 4 weeks to be conquered by Soviets. Pessimists 3 weeks.
    1
  288. Imagine US budget cut in half - that would be 100s of billions of USD a year - they may even compete against China!
    1
  289. They are also arming kids - on day 2 Zielniski removed age restriction of 18.
    1
  290. Not much of any affect at all. Most production is from domestic stuff. Anything else they can get elsewhere. Sanctions are only 14% of the planet. Not much.
    1
  291. Turkey is not in EU. The big guy in EU is Poland. With recent purchase it has about the same number of tanks as Germany + France + UK.
    1
  292. They started with roughly same equipment. Both over 1000 tanks. Russia controls the skies. Been controlling them since about 1st week of war. They cannot be decimated, they are out numbered 2 to 1 at least. How can they loose more people when they have so few people in? They would lost the war long time ago.
    1
  293. Allies could not even crush weak Germany with 80% of their forces in the east in 6 months. How do you propose finishing off Soviets that had far more forces then Germany in less time?
    1
  294.  @Schdcdd  They explained in detail how they do it. Nothing magical. You fly low, use terrain masking etc. Even F-16s can sneak next to S-400. Does not mean S-400 is bad or anything. Also Syrians do not have S-400. They have S-300. And given their record of using AA systems as well as Israeli ideas of how to fly I doubt they down too many planes. Nothing here is "special" and does not prove anything. No other system in the world would perform any better. Also why would Israel fly close to SAM sites to test them? That would be epic stupid. They would never fly in a way that they knew could even have slight chance of getting shot at.
    1
  295.  @Schdcdd  They are deployed to the Russian base. The S-300 are Syrian operated and cannot protect a huge area which includes mountains. When needing to attack where S-300 are you fire from Lebanese airspace something called "cruise missile". Once missile is off you dive back low. There is little need for F-35 here, F-16s do well. The one F-16 shot down was due to pilots being confused and not diving. If you plan your missions well and know where SAM sites are you don't have to worry too much - it does not matter SAM is S-300, S-400 etc. or anything else in the world.
    1
  296. They own over 3000 tanks. Out of these maybe 2000 plus can be used. They received over 200 tanks. They currently permanently lost at least 800, maybe 900. So they are still in OK shape. Yeah, and remember that US lost against Vietnam (!) and then lost even in Afghanistan. So loosing to Russia is no brainer.
    1
  297. Russia is clear winner in equipment replacement category.
    1
  298. Poland also thought so... wait Poland did actually invade Rus and won. The surrender of Polish garrison in Kremlin is now a day commemorated by a national holiday in Russia.
    1
  299.  @eduwino151  It is unlikely they "hold" anything. They liberate Russian speaking areas, they may create puppet regime of East Ukraine and that will be it. No insurgency - their own pp will not fire on them. Notice that the best fighters are from Crimea - the same army that just few years back was ... Ukrainian.
    1
  300. South will win due to simply having more pp. After the war unified Korea would be a hole no one would want to live in as everything north and south would be just ash. There are lots of inaccuracies as far as NK is concerned. NK has a lot of small drones for recon and a lot of artillery that can reach further out. There are war games that the west does and it does not look pretty. With nuke use at 60 or more there is enough to destroy every major city in SK as well as multiple military formations. Add to it chemical weapons and millions will be dead. After the war population of united Korea would be around 40m starving poor people. Also of note that SK population realize this and would be far less willing to fight an offensive war. No one wants to die for next to nothing in NK if you know your family will die as well.
    1
  301. Nah, its like 6B per month - we see how long west pays it.
    1
  302.  @Myemnhk  6B is just to pay civilian workers - and I doubt Russia spends a billion a day. plus pay army, plus pay for weapons, etc. Damage from Russian energy sanctions is in 100s of billion for EU and UK.
    1
  303.  @xiaodaigu5659  Its not a loan - these are subsidies - i.e. no need to repay.
    1
  304.  @antza4393  Sure they did. So why they could not counter attack? Why they lost so many tanks captured to Russia that even Oryx website lists 12 ex Ukrainian tanks as destroyed in combat? We hear so many losses, so much this and that. But why is Ukraine on the backstep then, they have 2x as much manpower, capture tons of tanks, started with lots of tanks... so where are all these tanks?
    1
  305.  @AnamolHouse  And Russia is using good old Soviet idea of "deep battle". This is why they advanced so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation Main Russian problem is they have not enough troops to do deep battle well.
    1
  306.  @S2uMANCHU  But they did not pick that strategy. You are reading it totally wrong. Recent changes in strategy show that Russians are thinking and doing things better. I mean they moved two huge fronts so fast and without Ukraine ever blinking. That took a week of planning and was executed perfectly. Now they are already on a train or off it at Donbass. It took some balls to pull this off and it feels cold calculus of Putin behind it. Again, you are not reading things right at all.
    1
  307.  @AnamolHouse  But they are no longer in that situation. Russians moved out of it. A bold move!
    1
  308. Sure, Hitler said the same. US also says the same, but has no issues building bases all around. Economically Russia is doing fine, it is close to level of Poland - so not too bad, about 3 to 4 times richer then Ukraine. Per person. Difference between Poland and Canada and Canada and US are about the same - Canada is the middle for these 3.
    1
  309.  @zooldoo  Problem is in Ukraine, in difference to most places on earth extremists are allowed to form armed units & country laws support them. Also in Ukraine they have huge support, west Ukraine has 70% support for Bandera! NATO is an alliance of countries that US has heavy control over. US frequently gets token support of NATO in its wars. Many wars. Lots of wars. Thus by far NATO is not defensive only alliance. Defensive only alliance would not be involved in more wars then any other country / group on earth. Azov battalion (or is it division now) is sure to end up with Javelins and NLAW etc. Come on. If moving NATO troops was not done to "offend" Russia - why main demand of Russia is to decrease these numbers - I mean they were high before Ukraine. US builds 100s of bases all over the world for control purposes. Poland dislike of Russia is based on the fact that they guy whom controls the government, aka the duck, thinks they killed his brother AND even before that he did not like them (commie red stuff). Through even he said that Ukraine will not enter EU with Bandera. If Russia is shadow of Soviet Union, why everyone is scared of it? Finland / Sweden had an understanding with Soviets they will not join NATO. I guess Russia being weak now is prompting them to join? Or is it pressure from US? Regarding Ukraine & respecting borders, why NATO does not respect border of Serbia? Why NATO carved out Kosovo? Why NATO wants "freedom" for Taiwan - if they respect borders so much, does it apply universally, or ... more selectively. Personally I am tilting more towards people in the regions deciding their fate, similar to as post WWI - Crimean wants to be with Russia, let them. east Ukraine wants to leave Bandera, let them. Taiwan wants to be outside of China, sure. Catalonia wants to separate from Spain, why not? Etc. One has to point out also no conditions in Ukraine for any minority to live there. They do not have even a hint of laws present in EU. They have even less then another "Nazi" which are the Baltics. How is EU tolerating the Baltics is beyond me, but I guess not all minorities or not all people are equal.
    1
  310. Given that CCP economy in PPP is bigger then that of US and given that China is one of few countries that has no modest economic growth how on earth will US ever starve China?
    1
  311.  @Misaka_Complex  And how do you want to disrupt that trade system - most of the trade is inside China. Big portion is with EU and Russia that are friendly with China to offset US dominance - i.e. the interest of the world is not for US to win.
    1
  312. I give it at most a month till capital is taken and few weeks more till all is taken. Mostly it would be "control territory" operation. Main defense of Ukraine is the fact that no one wants it. Even if it disbanded its army it is still quite safe.
    1
  313.  @sgtmayhem7567  They were so well treated 1000s died. Only in Finland were POW well treated. Certainly not in the west.
    1
  314. Civil war in UK would send them all into stone ages.
    1
  315. Why? Very credible and logical.
    1
  316.  @BaalBandit  They are out of about half of their tanks.
    1
  317. China is too smart to easily get dragged into a cold war style race - they just make what they need for pure defense. China knows it has the future - if it plays ball. It knows it will exceed US in real $$$ in a decade or so. All it needs to 2050 is to be 1.5x US economy +- few years. Once it is much bigger then and only then it will drag small US into arms race.
    1
  318. But Ukraine has at least 2:1 advantage - check out posted number of troops! This is posted by the WEST.
    1
  319.  @trevorbirkbeck4011  Part of the deal in removing nukes was Crimea stays in Ukraine and Russians get a base. Russia at first wanted Crimea back. It was the nukes that forced it into Ukraine. Ukraine out maneuvered Russia to get it. Then in 20+ years Russia out maneuvered Ukraine to get it back.
    1
  320. Correct. It has even weaker engines than Su-35. It is a stealthy F-15... 4.5 gen. Engines are of F-15 / F-16. Problem is Turkey is around 30 years behind in engine development - or 20 years. Without simply buying an engine from someone you will be waiting a very, very long time.
    1
  321.  @cemsefayavuz2517  No. It takes decades to make a 5th gen engine. You cannot just "make it" - the 5th gen aircraft difference from 4.5 is mostly... the engine. Turkey cannot easily develop such engine & by the time they do - they will have a 20 year old air frame to put it in. They need to acquire such engine - from either China or Russia. But neither is selling.... maybe in 10 years. Also being heavy 2 engine aircraft this is wrong approach for Turkey. US has less than 200 F-22s, Russia plans less than 100 Su-57s, does Turkey plan for less then 50 Kaan fighters then?
    1
  322. a) they are not winning b) they were not out gunned c) they out number Russians form the start at least 2:1 Think about it, if say front line is static, then both sides have to loose same ratio of troops. Since Ukraine has 2 times as much, they need to loose 2 as many troops. If they lost less, the ratio would change and they would wipe Russians out. But how can Russians kill so many Ukrainians? Well, its equipment, Ukrainians are losing more of it - so they make the "balance" with blood. Get it now?
    1
  323. Zero. It would be a success if war ended with current territorial losses of Ukraine. That would be Russian defeat.
    1
  324. They will not - but they sure do blow up a lot of stuff in Ukraine!
    1
  325.  @joshuabrant3487  Simple, DPR and LPR is 35000 plus 40,000 plus a bit more now (I have no data). Russian troops around 100k. Chechens at least 10k. Others max 5k. So total is 190k or so, maybe 200k max.
    1
  326. It played out over an island in the river. Did not go too well for PLA.
    1
  327. Actually no. Israel shown the world that Arabs don't know how to use tanks. Israel used 100s of captured tanks and they also had many, many victories in Israeli service. We can say 100s of destroyed M1 "US stuff" is garbage as well - even worse then Soviet stuff as at least Israel needed tanks to take out tanks while ISIS just needed pickups to take out M1.
    1
  328.  @chad_dogedoge  Well, 3rd world are countries not associated with East or West. So kind of hard for Russia to be not associated with itself ;)
    1
  329. Well, and would immediately have invasion threats. The only other ones are Sweden and Finland. Especially Finland managed to stay out of any war with Soviets by simply staying out of NATO.
    1
  330.  @SlavicUnionGaming  Finland is not in NATO.
    1
  331.  @Tonius126  It did, Soviets won the war with Finland and got all territories they demanded of Finland. Check your history.
    1
  332. LOL.
    1
  333. Allies would disintegrate within minutes. French would no longer want to fight. British the same. Remember 1939. I doubt US would want to fight for Warsaw as well. Who says allied POW camps were "nice"? You really think German POWs would be now welcome with open arms? Imagine what this would do to already limited allied moral. Imagine what would it do to boost Soviet morale - Soviet propaganda would make excellent use of this. Why would Soviet officers suddenly defect? Who would pay for it all in the west?
    1
  334.  @Raisinlove334  Vive le Québec libre!
    1
  335.  @petefl1818  And Ukraine did exactly the same.
    1
  336.  @robertmichalic4500  Its only 2 months - not 20 years.... remember that.
    1
  337.  @robertmichalic4500  I do not think Ukraine, with largest army in Europe, and better air defenses then Germany (i.e. best in Europe) can be compared to Taliban in Afghanistan. Also, may I remind you, US lost in Afghanistan. Not just some soldiers but rather large sum of $$$.
    1
  338. So, Russian media is far better then Ukrainian media. At least you are not bombarded with totally fake stories of "Heroes".
    1
  339. US is guilty of many crimes against Humanity. So what? Do you support China over evil US?
    1
  340.  @303Pinker  Russia was given option to have stealthy engines... price tag was astronomical. Price tag is so high no one else, even F-35 has it. F-22 was just "I don't care about price point".
    1
  341. They are uber low. Maybe few people. No one is that stupid. OK, maybe some are, like few people. Mentally unstable or something.
    1
  342. There is not much more that can be done with T-72 style tank - there simply is no place for it all. Even larger turret is quite limited. Hence Russia has created new platform and was looking for a new replacement sooner. Remember that T-72 style tanks are much older design the Abrams so they cannot be pushed as far.
    1
  343. Sure NATO would have stopped the Soviets - its called Nukes and lots of it. After few weeks crushing the puny NATO ground forces Soviets would have discovered nuclear rain. Certainly taking over all of Germany would be nice - too bad that Germany would be nuclear wasteland of no value, same as everything around it.
    1
  344. Very legit - I also concluded 2 to 1. He thinks logically like I do.
    1
  345.  @walterrwrush  Yep,. Egypt should send some of their M1 tanks - they already got 500 replacement T-90s so they can send say 500 M1s to Ukraine and order 500 T-90 from Russia to replace.
    1
  346.    Then don't be surprised if an actual war corrects your world view very quickly.
    1
  347. Which future war is Russia going to loose and with whom?
    1
  348. Yeah, situation does not look good for Ukraine. With Putin moving troops from the whole northern front it looks very bad.
    1
  349.  @AEB1066  Negative, one hub for the way there was taken out of commission & even if it was not any train movement is out of the options - it would be ... LOL reduced to ashes. Only two words are not under artillery cover, both are watched 24/7 only small tiny convoys can go through. Thus there is absolutely no way Ukraine can move faster then Russia, which can use railroads.
    1
  350.  @olgajoachimosmundsen4647  Force peace & remove US from any negotiations or any power to say anything in Europe.
    1
  351. So what, Russians simply captured at least 150 Ukrainian tanks (as per videos I seen) and Oryx simply forgot to mention that. This is why you have so many killed "Russian" T-64BVs. Maybe its Ukrainian tactics - give Russians poor tanks and then shoot them?
    1
  352.  @REgamesplayer  But that will not lead you too far - you end up with a force similar to that Soviets had in 1941. I.e. you will luck unit coordination. This means the tanks, as per Binkov, will be frequently abused and easy to destroy. It is certainly better then say nothing but of little value on modern battlefield with at peer that adversary. Also your year thing is not that simple, maybe you can finish somehow limited number of training at platoon and company level but you will luck larger unit training. Also how many instructors you have etc. - as you state is not "unlimited". Also of note is Korean conflict - NK tankers had "quick" training and their T-34s were easily destroyed. Their essential training was good enough for dealing with SK but was a disaster vs. US. One can also add ME conflicts, especially against Israel - here again "essential" training proven to be a disaster. Syrian tanks were certainly driven, their guns fired in the general direction of the enemy but was it.
    1
  353.  @runi5413  They do have strategic reserves, if not for having simply replacement tanks for their losses. They have like 4x as many in storage as in front line deployment. The question is whatever they need 10x and the answer is no - as it simply would cost too much $$$ to have so many tanks & probably crews would not make it alive by tank #10. And we are talking about catastrophic tank destruction.
    1
  354.  @ÖmerPirbudak-n3d  ... But that could take 20 years!
    1
  355.  @ÖmerPirbudak-n3d  But England does not have the tech either and even if they did its unlikely they would have sold it to Turkey. I am unsure youtube will still be a thing when these engines are ready.
    1
  356.  @navidbutt17  Correct - and to get that any engine you either need to design it, or buy it. I doubt Turkey can buy from US - so that leaves Putin or Xi or 20 year design time. Also your Mach 1.6 is better than F-22 - so the engines would have to be better than what US got. 1.6 would be best in the world. I doubt Turkey can pass everyone on earth in engine design when its their ... first engine ;)
    1
  357.  @samedaltun  First 5th generation engine. TEI-TF10000 are not engines for fighter aircraft but for drones ;) I did research objectively. Producing 1980s fighter engines and new engines for drones is light ways away from 5th gen engine. Literally 20+ years. So what that Kaan will fly this month? Who cares - it has no engines.... and none are even in semi advanced development phase AFAIK. Again, either Xi or Putin - or 20 years. And 20 years is optimistic.
    1
  358.  @noraarelee3863  What drone? Now like 30 year old tech? Turkey purchased some original US drones and had access to that tech. Not too complex tech. Turkey now has zero access to F-35 & even if it did, it is not simple tech. Better than China? Really? This is why China makes like 80% of world's drones?
    1
  359.  @ErsanYolcu  One has to quote "9 women cannot give birth in 1 month". Also $$$ invested by US or $$$ by Russia or China is huge. Same as number of people.
    1
  360.  @oghuzkhan5117  No one currently has such engines ;) This would be significantly more powerful than F135 engine on F35. So if Turkey has such advanced engines why US did not buy from Turkey - or Russia? Or China? I mean this is better then even engines that US has in early stages of planning ;) Or wait, do you mean actual fighter engines or engines for civilian airliners? Boeing 777 engines produce up to 510kn! 170kn here would be more for regional aircraft. So yeah, I mean it - Turkey has old junk engines.... for its fighters. No tech.
    1
  361.  @oghuzkhan5117  From 2020 or so "Turkish factories currently make more than 900 parts for the F-35's center fuselage, cockpit display systems and other components," - maybe its under "other" but certainly not seen in the west as "major" part. As for 3D printing in Ti "With metal 3D printing, the most commonly-used grade of titanium is the alloy, Ti6Al4V (Ti64). In addition to Ti64, it's also possible to 3D print with pure titanium.Jun 18, 2019" and "titanium costs about $363 per kilogram". Its commercial tech. You give me plans and I can print it out.
    1
  362. I put Russia as a winner. They gain new lands, they stop NATO. Prestige through the roof. Etc.
    1
  363. Most pp do not. Use logic. How can so few Russians kick in the ass such a huge UA army? And how can Russians take heavier losses? Someone is lying big time.
    1
  364.  @vladizt5943  But I can remove some BS out using logic. Like for example large Russian casualties. Simply b/c there is not enough Russians ;)
    1
  365.  @vladizt5943  Well, you can tell some tank types apart. You can also see some camouflage. But generally you can get a feel for the losses by simply looking at troop performance.
    1
  366. If you are right why Ukraine, having all these weapons, having all these troops not push Russians out and is loosing villages? How can this be? Russian no soldiers, no tanks, yet ... moving forward?
    1
  367. But we do not have WWII - we have modern war.
    1
  368. Today Germany has rather small army - so not a big deal. If they each had few years to arm its a different deal. Turkey today has big army but no match for Russia at all. If each had few years to arm Russia would also easily run them over - far easier then Germany (wide margin). All of EU today plus Russia would easily defend themselves against US. Defeating US through would be very hard as it involves rather long range invasion. Potential of EU plus Russia is about 2x that of US and with excellent defensive position of US it would be impossible to win. Through if say China joined on EU+Russia side things would become nasty for US as it would be now close to 6 to 1. This is in scenario where aliens control humans for fun as no one would fight a war as a joke.
    1
  369. Ukraine started the war with around 2000 towed pieces alone. Yep. 20 x more then they got from US. 20.
    1
  370. EU pays less for gas then China does. Putin selling to China at EU prices == total win for China, and OK for Russia. Better, Putin selling more to China, less to EU at current prices, total win for Russia, total loss for EU and OK for China. Remember there is limited gas on earth, if Russia does not sell to EU, someone else pulls stuff from China & does not sell there - that stuff goes to EU. Current big winner is EU - That is why Germany is on such huge defense - they want to keep the current deal!
    1
  371.  @MrKeyframes  US would follow its interests. If it was not in US interest to do so they would not. NATO does not force any obligations on its members. Its quite open. If it is in US business to act, it can act, if its not, it does not. Simple.
    1
  372.  @iljasidlun1952  NATO stands for No Action Talk Only. US action would be limited to demand immediate withdrawal of forces. Given that Russia had say a mission of eliminating hostile government it would comply. Certainly sanctions would be used. Certainly US would start to deploy army to EU. But that would be mostly it. So US would not "ignore" they would simply deal with it. Of course Baltics would be fully pacified.
    1
  373. Easy win for India - why - UK has what is known as "white elephant" i.e. single super important target - zero redundancy. No resilient network. Just one single base. With one airport. It is a very weak hand. Only way UK could win if they could pull it off as if the island is not even there and is a bonus. But that would require massively larger fleet. New task - could China control Indian ocean?!
    1
  374. Wait, US has its own Meteor missile coming into operation this year with 200km range. Why would US buy something it has? See Aim-260. China has even better - PL-21 coming in. And Russia has their AESA based (so indeed they can make these) missiles.
    1
  375. Even Nazi members of Ukraine army realize that in the best scenario they will loose lot of land. If your crack Nazi troops admit that there is no path to pushing Russia out... I tend to agree. But only on that. I do not like Nazi.
    1
  376.  @nattygsbord  So they have better weapons by say 2024. By that time Russia will probably have parity in numbers and will be entrenched behind rivers in frozen conflict holding to 1/3 of Ukraine. Good luck to any attack. And what about the western role in the war? Even CNN expert admitted that US should not push for expansion of NATO at any cost. Why did US push for expansion? US never cared about 250m starving or a billion.
    1
  377.  @matthew1882  Certainly better then it did under occupation.
    1
  378. ​ @stigandersen3783 look at history legends video or any WWI or WWII history book.
    1
  379. F-22 was created ahead of its time for huge cost and is suffering as a consequence. It was developed to give edge in a fight against possible Soviet replacement for Su-27. Since Soviets collapsed no such 5th gen was ever developed and F-22 found itself as a very expensive toy that had no adversary. At astronomical cost per unit it was quickly put on hold then cancelled. Even "economical" F-35 is too expensive. Russia today cannot afford too many Su-50 as they have much cheaper Su-35 - similar to F-15EX that can do almost all missions Su-50 can. World is simply not counting on a peer conflict that is hot and long.
    1