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

  1. 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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4.  @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
  5. 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
  6.  @officialJoebiden  UK does not poses enough nukes to destroy half of EU. But EU has enough to destroy all of UK.
    2
  7. Iran and Turkey are not friends. China will rather be friends with EU.
    2
  8.  @SwoleTown  China was invaded by Japan in WW2 - some even want to count start of invasion as start of WWII.
    2
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11.  @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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16. Why? UK has little bone in the play.
    2
  17. 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
  18.  @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
  19. 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
  20.  @miruu28  Sure, I guess both Russia and US should hire Turkish engineers as it took them 20 years each ;)
    2
  21.  @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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. As will st. Pion and St. Kornet and St. T-72 soon be blessing Ukrainians.
    1
  26. Maybe - so far its maybe. But I do not see them out of the question - if west escalates so will Russia.
    1
  27. 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
  28. Yes with a new peace treaty.
    1
  29. But Russia did archive their objectives in Syria while US did not... So western command must be brain dead or something.
    1
  30.  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
  31. Not great, not terrible - Russia's favorite saying!
    1
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39.  @UzumakiNaruto_  Sure, but they will not have meat to grind forever.
    1
  40. They do! And they had to loose more. There is no other logical explanation of what did happen and what is currently happening.
    1
  41. 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
  42.    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
  43. 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
  44. LOL! Good one!
    1
  45. They seem accurate - somewhat low for Ukraine through on some systems.
    1
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. LOL. Especially Dutch response ;)
    1
  49.  @para-tanker  Exactly & you do not want too lose such $.
    1
  50.  @jondoe6926  Russians sure had far less freedom during Stalin and yet they fought rather hard - so you mean freedom made them weaker?
    1