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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6. 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
  7.  @ZachRM95  Programmer & I worked on similar systems.
    3
  8.  @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
  9.  @greenling.  I am reapeatikng info from IMF, World Bank etc. I.e. All western sources. You can Google yourself and there it is.
    3
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Re watch the video. Putin decreased storage 5x.
    3
  14. 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
  15. US occupied more then half of ME - mark them as black.
    3
  16. 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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. " 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
  22. If US had troops there invasion would be certain.
    2
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. what if... both sides surrender at the same time???
    2
  27.  @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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Most of the planet is neutral. Take for example India.
    2
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. LOL - so show us your losses - not the ones from ghost of Kiev, but real ones! Show us your 30,000 killed!
    2
  42. They forgot about that according to the west ;)
    2
  43. @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
  44.  @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
  45. F-22 has 2D thrust vectoring, Su-57 has 3D.
    2
  46. But what if they are actually happy and want to fight?
    2
  47. Poland sent all they could - 236.
    2
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50. 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